Quite right, Sugarfoot.

I don't expect to convince either Iona or Pete, though I have to say I find Pete a little more open to rationality in at least some areas. I'm not certain whether that makes him more or less dangerous in the sense of (4) though.

As I have said before, in so far as I have a goal, it is to make it obvious to third parties just how threadbare the creationist arguments are - they can't even be clear about what they believe as individuals, never mind as a group. For example, most recently we had, in response to the repeated direct question do you believe in these underground reservoirs we had 'Underwater reservoirs were most likely a factor, yes' Weasel words: were they are factor or were they not? If they were, where are they? If they were not, why did you say they were?

And Penny: an excellent summary. I could add more, and maybe will, but I see little point since your critique is so good.