who is WILLOWTREE?

Unfortunately this does not appear to qualify one for having a comprehension of biology, geology, radiometric dating or even archaeology. However this does not prevent willow from offering unsupported assertions which contradict the established position in these scientific fields.

dpardo Patience is a virtue.We have been quite virtuous on the part of Willow as well so that aspect rolls both ways my friend.What we really need is to be debating with Dr. Scott since his "gestalt" method of presenting evidence on his broadcasts leaves much to be desired and is the source of much of Willows confusion on issues here.

---

[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together

Well that' s a demonstration of the low standards creationists are held to. I find it absolutely amazing that Willowtrees own frequent rudeness is ignored.Just consider Willowtree's attitude to sources. He expects the assertions made by his sources to be uncritically accepted, and rants about how it is "unfair,"when this does not happen. The fact that his sources are less than authoritative and usually hopelessly unreliable is not relevant to him.At the same time when someone else cites a source that is contrary to his claims he often reacts by slandering the author.Maybe this is what passes for debating "well" in creationist terms - rants and personal attacks in place of reasoned argument. I know I've seen enough to suspect that that is true. But if that's the case I'm glad I'm not a member of such an intellectuially and morally bankrupt grouping.

What makes you think I'm Batman???

Obviously Batman enjoys a good ass whoopin'. lolThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-01-2004 02:01 PM

There's no denying that some people can be rude, but WT is not immune to that behavior either. We are all passionate about what is discussed here and sometimes our anger gets the better of us.That's why it's good the moderators keep us on the straight and narrow. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-01-2004 04:33 PM

Hi Roxrkool,Agreed.

quote:

---

I've been wondering if he's the Great Milton himself.

---

From personal correspondence, no, he is not Milton. To my knowledge, he has never misrepresented himself in any thread nor is there anything nefarious in his real identity. Although I and others may disagree with his worldview and logic, he is brave enough to face criticism on a regular basis unlike some who come on this site. For that he should be commended. I would like direct answers to my direct questions, but given that we have a regular creationist target I won't complain too loudly.Beyond that, I don't think that Willow's real identity should have any impact on any discussions.

Have you seen Willowtree's recent material ? Do you still think that he is "very intelligent" and "debates well" ? Or do you think that he doesn't understand what he is saying and is incapable of understanding how to rationally discuss issues ?In short do you beleieve that his atrocious behaviour is a deliberate tactic or that your assessment was very wide of the mark ?

Hi PaulK,Is Willowtree lying here: ?

As I remember the thread there was considerable uncertainty over the height. It was not clear whether or not the pyramid capstone had been installed. Thermal variations in height apparently exceeded the 1-inch accuracy claimed by Willowtree. So I believe that Willowtree's claim is false. I make no judgement on this issue if he is lying or simpky wrong.Your turn.Why did Willowtree refuse to discuss actual measurements in the LLM thread ? Why is he still insistingt that Rutherford's unsupported assertion should be accepted instead of doing the actual measurements ? Doesn't he relaise that it makes it looks as if he knows that Rutherford is wrong and he is dishonestly trying to evade the issue ?Why is WillowTree relying on Milton's assertions when he knows that Milton is unreliable ?Why is Willowtree calling so many people liars ?

Perhaps, dpardo, you could be helpful to WT.He may see you as someone who is not dishonest, nasty, a liar, etc, and so forth. This may allow you to talk to him and point out to him what his actions suggest about the quality of his actual evidence.The height claim is clearly the most important one to WT's source's claims so it is understandable that he keeps coming back to that. The problem with it is the overall complexity of what is being suggested and claimed.There are, for the height, specific claims which there appear to be no way to independently check. This means that one side or the other has to rely on the statments of others. It would be interesting to clear it up as far as we possibly can with the limits on what we can do here.However, there are several other claims (LLM,LLP, center of delta, center of area, curvature) which are much easier to examien and independently check. It was for this reason that the LLM was pulled out as an example.Perhaps you can show WT how much doubt it casts on all the claims when one as simple as the LLM is causes him to go off in great harangs of invective instead of just dealing with it.I think you are closer in beliefs to him than most of the rest of us. Your opinion on the whole thing would be interesting to me and might, just maybe, be helpful to him. I'm more than a bit afraid that if you hint at disagreement with him you will be branded as a God-senseless, no true Christian though. Good luck.If you agree completely with him on the nature of evidence that would be suitable for something like the LLM claim I would be interested in how you would explain and justify that. WT doesn't even try to do that so it is hard to understand just what the heck he is thinking.

These questions can only be answered by Willowtree.I think if we give Willowtree time and opportunity, he will answer all of your questions. Can you please direct me to the relevant posts that you refer to here. I have not had a chance to read all of Willowtree's posts yet. Give me some time here.

So really your assessment is based on the idea that he might have some good reason for preferring Rutherford's assertions to actual measurements that he's not telling us ? As for the rest a highly intellignet and skilled debator would know better than to be so obviously evasive.Milton is, I tihnk, mainly relevant to the "God-sense" thread. But Willlowtree has appealed to Milton since his first appearance on thi board and certainly should remember that Milton was shown to be unreliable - which s why he stopped using Milton as a source for a time.

The LLM topic was split off 3 full months ago. That was after some weeks trying to get an explanation of the calculations of the LLM in the Proof of God thread.For weeks we have been asking how far the GP is from the seacoast. A single, simple map measurement.I think there has been a lot of time. Do you disagree?It is hard to believe that someone would be so attached to an idea that he would think that ignoring a simple map measurement was the only way to hold on to that idea. This kind of mind-set is so alien I'd like to try to understand it better. However, it does seem to be pretty clear that WT would never answer any questions.The moving him to boot camp was done rather late and reluctantly. But in fairness to others it was necessary. His latest tactic of using it as an avoidance device shouldn't be, I suppose, too surprising.I'll see if I can find more on WT and Milton and edit it in here.IIRC, the first one was statments of Milton on the thylacine. That should search up easily.this whole thread is where it all started I think:
http://EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution -->EvC Forum: Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolutionhere is a short one on Milton
EvC Forum: Milton & selection
it appears WT jumped ship hereThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-04-2004 09:24 PM