chumly, thinking out loud saidQuote:I find it hard to believe (if it?s his intention to be convincing) that he?s meeting with much success on A2K and I would imagine his efforts would meet with a much higher success rate via other venues.
My intervention with RL goes back a few years (as does ros, ci, set, the late Timber, and a few others). I get a nice bit of enjoyment out of how RL, in a rather polished argument built on selective exegetics, quote "mining" and thought compression of others, has so far managed to avoid any acquaintence with the sciences . He wishes to invoke specific scientific LAws (like Thermodynamics) but misses the fact that such laws govern all other reactions, (such as radioactive decay). He tries to benefit from the "duck and cover " of one, while avoiding any confrontation with the other. I find that entertaining and Ive often complimented him sincerely on his abilities to walk those lines of dogma without getting too involved with the rigors of a deeper knowledge of science.
I truly believe that RL is , at least, an acolyte, in some Evangelical Bible-centered group that professes a deep and public faith in Biblical Inerrancy.
If you figure it out, were some parts of the Bible not completely true to their purposes, then their whole fabric of belief falls. Dogma can be a demanding mistress.
He does leave many clues as to his abilities and limitations so, to be fair, I dont think its necessary to pursue him back to his refuge whenever we get too heavy with evidence. I always like to leve him with some area within which science doesnt have it all figured out and then watch as he either does or doesnt "jump on the opportunity". I find that most fun.
A while back we were enjoying some bit of evidence "piling on" of RL and I injected a fact that "Bats were a real problem in unravelling their fossil record from their origin". RL , as expected, turned the conversation to how we dont know anything when we have such a gaping hole in cladistic emergence. Wellsir, fun and games ensued.
