It's interesting, and I really did enjoy all of your posts to "nobody" on James' blog, but I find myself thinking that these people don't deserve to have anybody rebutting their claims. They're time-wasters. It's very sad to me how much time and energy is devoted to time-wasting people, who can be, I admit, extremely dangerous and destructive. I suppose the point is for other people listening, bcause there's little chance a creationist is going to start seeing reason.

I think you've hit upon it Maggie. It's not about the scientist or the creationist. It's all about the audience.

Actually, next time we encounter a "nobody," we could just send him to that page and say "come back if you come up with a new argument."

Good point. I just checked Haldane's Dilemma, sure enough there it is.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

Turns out that one was resolved in 1991. So it was an an argument that had been laid to rest, oh, SIXTEEN YEARS AGO. Gotta love that conspiracy. It was going strong even way back then!

Oh, believe me, I could frustrate any Creationist who cares to argue with me. I don't have to put the white hat on, you know. And I'm to lazy to be as thorough as well-spoken as Chuck when dealing with these bozos, though this page will help... a lot!

Thing is, they will choose not to argue with me if there is someone reasonable who is willing to write back in the thread.

That said, Chuck pretty much shut that guy down, we just didn't let him slip away from the point where Chuck caught him. That's how you do it; you don't let them slip around. If they throw out 6 bad arguments and 3 people try to refute all 6, it's a long, messy, time-wasting thread.

If, OTOH, you team up, corner him on one or 2 arguments, and hammer away together, he can spew all he wants, trying to change the subject but all you have to do is repeat, repeat repeat if he refuses to address his argument's weakness.