After reading Pete's latest emails (addressed to Bill) I realise the long hours I've put into attempting to reason with him have been wasted. He hasn't even started to question his own beliefs, and to him the simplicity of literalism and the comforting blanket of ignorance it wraps him in is obviously easier than expending any energy actually finding out what he is talking about.

So . . . has this all been a waste of time? In some respects, yes. I thought I could reason with Pete, but he's so blinkered (wait for the reply of "yours is a faith position") he is incapable accepting any view but his own, or those that a certain group of anon webbers tell him he should believe.

From my own point of view though, it has been useful as it helps to order thoughts and form arguments in order to address such inaccurate statements such as Pete's. It's been a useful exercise.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to challenge one really minute, obscure, tiny-weeny area of accepted scientific thought with what I've discovered in my own research.



*Hmmm. I thought the bible was the word of god. Can a document dictated (I presume it was dictated, is that what himself did with the commandments?) by a supernatural being be historical? That opens some possibilities. Crikey. Derek Acorah might be producing actual historical knowledge. Now that's a turn-up!