>>Yes, Jack, it's becoming more and more obvious that pete, and his creationist mates, are not really interested in the scientific evidence for evolution. <<<

I think that is true. But other than reading creationist literature for arguments, I think pete is working on his own here.

>>>Or rather, they are extremely irritated and annoyed that such overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence exists because it undermines their faith (i.e. their pious, unquestioned beliefs). <<<

I don't think they are annoyed at all. There is a tradition in Christianity of martyrdom and fighting against all odds for their beliefs. It has worked in the past. Look at what happened in Rome.

I don't have a problem with pete arguing for what he believes. I do have the desire to convince him to see reason, but his conviction to his cause is obviously stronger than mine. I know that people smarter than me have addressed and dispensed with all of the arguments he puts forth, but I, don't have the time or the inclination to go and find them. Yet he does have the patience and the will to plow through reams and reams of Creationist nonsense to find a response to any cogent argument that any of us puts forth.

I have to admire that kind of doggedness.

The only problem I have with what he does is when someone he is trying to convert responds with insults and anger. A third person, looking at that exchange sees a frothing bully and a calm person. A lot of people, sometimes not consciously, decide the believability of things based upon the demeanor of the person presenting the case. I think pete know this and is using it as a tactic. Insulting pete, demeaning pete, saying angry things to him make him think he is winning. The more people demean him the more likely he is to post things that will set them off.

I'm not saying that is the reason pete posts everything he posts. I now agree with Bill D's contention that he believes what he posts. But I believe that it is part of the dynamic of the interactions with pete.

Pete, Sorry about speaking about you in the third person.

You seem to be a bit of an evangelical missionary with the Mudcat as your mission. You know that the very idea of that angers people, yet you press on. You are not unkind, impolite, argumentative or snooty when you do so. I accept (personally, speaking only for myself) your contributions to the forum. I don't share your opinions in general, but I'll defend your right to express them.