Trying to change the mind of a smug dogmatist for the amusement of a small and hostile audience isn't high on my priority list.
Your 7100+ posts at Mormon Discussions say otherwise, Dan.
I have no interest in conversing with you, not because I nearly went to Caltech as an undergraduate or spent time at the Volcanological and Seismological Observatory of Costa Rica or entered BYU as a mathematics major with a life-sized photo of Albert Einstein on my dorm room wall, but because I don't find you intellectually serious on the issues you say you want to discuss. You're dogmatic, ill-informed, and prone to sloppy, self-serving distortions.
Blood pressure, Dan, blood pressure.
Okay, so let’s move the focus away from DrW and his “dogmatic, ill-informed" and "sloppy, self-serving distortions” (wow, you're a nice guy, Dan) and look at another scientist. If an when Thomas Eagar ever adds his testimony to Mormon Scholars testify, he will most likely do so in accordance with the following:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eager said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion. (Emphasis mine.)
If he does, won’t it tend to detract from the credibility of his “testimony” as a scientist? When subjected to close scrutiny, how can his or any other scientist’s testimony possibly add to the credibility of the Church?