who is WILLOWTREE?

Does anyone know?

He is the resident Creationist.

He is an amusing useful example of the kind of "thinking" processes that I think is representative of the "classical" creationist.The word "classical" is used for Mike as he want to call him self a "creationist" and I am not saying that Mike is in the same group as WT.Interesting I was talking to a friend who is on the board of the local united church. It seems they were all having a discussion after a meeting recently. They discussed what it meant to be called "Christian". It seems they all had one misgiving about someone calling them Christians -- they don't want to be grouped in anyones mind with the likes of the average creationist that we see here and who make a big deal about the label "Christian".The fundamentatlists live in such a walled in little world that they don't even realize how much damage they do to the faith and how much they are looked at with distain by the majority of Christians.WT is an example of all that.

He is the antithesis of reason or logic. But he is also representative of a large segment of the population.We have others here who do not support an assertion because they know it will show them to be wrong. WILLOWTREE really doesn't understand the posts that refute his assertions; he really thinks he makes sense. He is, IMHO, being sincere. Unlike others he is not dancing away or being evasive. He really believes the things he posts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What's the deal with this?I think singling out participants, like Buz or WT, is incredibly bad form. How would you guys feel if your ideological counterparts opened threads to speculate on your motives and thought processes?I don't understand how you guys could participate in this without feeling incredibly ashamed.

Post deleted.Yea, good point Crash. I did feel dirty.My apologies WT.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 10-28-2004 10:36 PM

I agree. Even though I have said something along the line of the previous posts in this thread may be once or twice, you have no idea how many times I have written up a post that criticized WT's ideology and methodology and never pressed the submit button.

---

He's not dead. He's electroencephalographically challenged.The longest word in the English language is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

I don't think it's in bad form, Crash. I was simply curious if anyone knew his real identity now. I've been gone for a while. I might be a bit sarcastic and harsh sometimes, but I have never bashed anyone here.Or is it wrong, like on TWeb, to speculate on identities?I've been wondering if he's the Great Milton himself.And personally, if someone wanted to single me out in a thread, I'd be excited someone found me interesting enough to discuss.

I don't feel badly at all.I think that the kind of arguments that WT puts forward and his reaction to rebuttal are very good bad examples of thinking.The degree to which he demonstrates the weakness of the thinking of that side is the degree to which he is of value.I don't believe anything I said (here anyway) was a direct personal attack. However, I do think that commenting on the quality of reasoning demonstrated and behaviour exhibited is reasonable. After a fair amount of time to allow the individual to learn better, of course, WT has had that time.He isn't learning anything and his behaviour improves not at all.He rants about people giving the impression of looking down at him. However, I won't apologize for feeling intellectually (though perhaps no other way) superior to someone who thinks that a list of distances between lat/long coords is "complicated numbers". WT says more against himself than anyone could.

I can't help but get a sense of dirty pool about it. A) it doesn't matter; and B) if he wanted us to know, he'd tell us. I mean, do we really think he's somebody we've all heard of? I'm nobody anybody has ever heard of, myself.

roxrkool Well, its obvious that you are Batman being kicked awake by one of his superhero buddies after a night of binge drinking.Pathetic really.You would think the dude would have more self control.This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-30-2004 11:27 PM

Willowtree.A very intelligent Creationist.Possesses extensive knowledge of the bible.He has answered many questions about the bible here and, IMO, debated many issues well.There are some members here, though, that are so rude and arrogant that it really tests Willowtree's patience.I believe he is very passionate about God and the bible, as I am.

you want to put that boot on me and I might get excited ...(and why is batman smiling ...?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I have often wondered the same thing about you regarding the bible.

not to quibble but ... ... is just being a good biblical scholarThis message has been edited by RAZD, 10-31-2004 12:49 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}