lao tzu's little rant was a fine example of why it's often such a waste of time to engage online skeptics. It was a delightful combination of condescending mockery, irrelevant nitpicking and asinine rambling--nothing more than the sophomoric hubris we've come to expect from the typical Internet skeptic.These people act like reading two or three books and a couple of blog articles makes one an expert in all the relevant fields. It's the sort of faux intellectualism that thinks Wikipedia can replace trips to the library and makes someone believe Richard Dawkins has something meaningful to say about religion.His discussion of ancient flood mythology was amateurish. It contains the sort of nonsensical string of assertions that only the uninitiated would have trouble engaging. lao tzu acts as if placing the characters and myths of ancient flood mythology alongside the contents of the Biblical narrative is some sort of great defeater for the Genesis account and we should only be so grateful to bask in the glow of his erudition. Never mind all the steps necessary to either establish dependence or overturn the various counter-arguments offered in the Christian literature.