I am. :-)
because from what I can see, your chances of convincing your chief interlocutor and his smirking friends of the soundness of any results of evolution studies are about the same as convincing them that they need remedial thinking lessons.
True, but every once in a long while one does surprise me. But I'm not writing for their benefit, I'm writing for the benefit of the lurkers who might be "on the fence". Plus, I'm always fascinated by seeing the many ways in which "certain folks" can find to dodge.
Willful blindness is almost always an incurable malady.
Or as the old saying goes, "you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place."
There's also usually a strong measure of this involved:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910)
All of us hate being found wrong in an argument. I know I do, and I have some scars from direct and indirect hits. I tend to post fast and loose.
The difference between myself and a creationist is that I am merely embarrassed when wrong. The creationist is afraid of eternal damnation for saying or believing the wrong thing. This is a hell of a way to go through life.
We got a glimpse of this attitude on the thread about Ernst Mayr -- FReeper who were certain of the state of his soul. The same smirking posts are made about Darwin, by FReeper who seem to know the activities of God in great personal detail.
The real debate here is not about who is right and who is wrong, but about how we form our opinions. Whether our motive is fear or curiosity.
Thanks, too, of course, for the wealth of links and information you've been providing us.