You are mellowing, Steve. A much reduced incidence of swear words although still the same string of ad hominem attacks and complete failure to make a coherent response to any of the points I raised.

Not much point in responding to any of it but there is one thing to clarify. I have never said that science sets out to prove anything. If you think I have, produce your evidence.

Finally, I note your characterisation of me and unspecified others as "self-styled scientists."
That was wrong of me. I apologise unreservedly. I promise in future to present my arguments to the same high standard of fairness and courtesy exemplified by your good self.

It is very touching to see a man totally without any sense of irony do that -- then type out in full all his "qualifications". Nice touch!

One of your favourite debating techniques (after abuse) is to question the qualifications of your opponents. For some reason this doesn't stop you trying to reason with pete, who gets his science from creationist websites, and Guest from Sanity, who gets his science from the Discovery Channel. Where Chongo gets his science from we may never know.

Of me you said - "I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry". If you are going to imply that you are better qualified than I am, I felt it was reasonable to spell out my qualifications. In particular, I have studied the scientific method at undergraduate level and Philosophy of Science at postgraduate level. Your response to that was "Well good for you. The only thing is, I don't think science is that at all and you have no grounds for saying it.". So what do you think science is and how have you arrived at that conclusion? You don't seem to have heard of Popper or falsifiability. Nothing you have said has shown any sort of understanding of the scientific method. Is your view of science entirely of your own making? I have given you links to helpful websites, quoted material on other threads and suggested topics for you to Google. You have ignored them all. You seem to be proud of your ignorance and determined to preserve it while still, somehow, claiming your own superiority.

Bryan Creer RYA Inshore Yachtmaster (theory), RSMAB Grade 3 oboe, MCP

P.S. Saying that Dawkins is a greater evolutionary biologist that you or I isn't setting the bar particularly high.

P.P.S. You'd really like Barnsley's Fern.