"he had in fact been quoting pete quoting me so, qualified apology Stu because it still read as if it was me you were having a go at"

No worries.


"but as just about anything you might cite could be accounted for in the creation model"

With all respect, that is one steaming great pile of bullshit.

Seeing as you are so anti-science Pete, you might be better off concentrating on your own spiritual path rather than making yourself look like a total thickie (which I'm sure you're not). Thing is, you're so far from understanding any of the science it's ridiculous. You really have no fucking clue. Not an inkling.

I read the New Testament when I was in my twenties after being raised a good Christian. I do know about the subject as I had years of church services, groups for young teenagers and who know what else. In the end (and after much deliberation), I decided to reject the existence of your Abrahamic God on the same grounds I dismiss the existence of the Lock Ness Monster (something else I was really fascinated by when I was younger); theres not a jot of evidence.

In the end your fundamentalist, literalist mates are simply trying to distract any degree of debate on the validity of creationism by making up words and theories that shoehorn or misrepresent the facts to support their own worldview. This isn't science (which already has a robust and thorough system of peer review to ensure it's integrity and veracity), it's making shit up.

Whilst you continue to be influenced not by scientists (many people of faith themselves) but by people making shit up, then this conversation is pointless.