Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

Boy, go away for two weeks and look what you miss.I have a couple questions for you WILLOWTREE, based on this statement that you have repeatedly made. Specifically, lets look at this portion of the quote; Now, why is it that you accept that he is not a creationists simply because he claims not to be, but you refuse to believe that a evolutionist can claim to be a theist?So I guess I'm just a little curious. Why you would think that the claim of one individual (Milton) has any more validity than the claim of another (say...Trixie, for example)?

Hello Again WILLOWTREE:I have a few points this time around. Let's start with "relevance". You made this statement in an earlier post: They way I read this is that you were thrilled to find Milton's evidence because here you have a non-creationist independently supporting creationist claims. Somehow, you believe, Milton simply saying that he is not a creationsist validates his evidence against evolution. And your evidence that he is not a creationist is his claim to not be one. Following that sort of twisted, circular logic, am I correct in making the assumption that if you find out the Milton is indeed a creationist, then your so called "independent corroboration" will no longer be valid and you will have to conceed that his evidence is now false?Your basic arguement against the ToE is based on him not being a creationist. That is why it's relevant.Now, about the skull comparison. You said this: If you have not yet visited the sites listed in Asgara's post, please do so. Pay careful attention to the comparisons between the Thylacine and Grey wolf skulls from the ventral view. Look closely. See all those foramen (holes) scattered about? Notice the differences in number and their locations? Now look at the area between the two rows of teeth. Notice anything different between the palatine and maxilla bones from one animal to the next? Do you see the two relatively smooth, curved surfaces surrounding a big hole located at the back of the shull? Those are called the occipital condyles and are the site of articulation between the skull and the atlas (cervical vertabrae #1). See how different they look?Let's move on to the teeth. Count the number of incisors for each animal. By my count, the Grey wolf has six (three on each side) while the Thylacine has eight. How about the premolars? Eight total for the Grey wolf, six for the Thylacine. If you count the molars you will notice that the Grey wolf has only four while the Thylacine has eight.See Willowtree, I think even a 1st or 2nd grader could find numerous differences between these "indentical" skulls. (Not that I'm saying NosyNed is, at best, only a second grader. I have a feeling (but I could be wrong) that NosyNed is a long way removed from second grade ). Is that preponderance enough?I would suggest you stop putting such blind faith in Milton and look at the evidence for yourself. In doing so, I fail to see how you could continue supporting claims that are so easily disproven.

I'll try this again. Ok, how do we know that Milton is not a creationist? According to you, it's simple...he says so. But yet he does not accept the ToE. Ok, fine. What then do you, WILLOWTREE, consider the definition of a creationist to be? That is to say, what does someone have to "believe" in order to be a creationist? If things didn't evolve, then how did they get here? I'll admit it, I don't know that much about Milton. I'm just wondering what he thinks explains the diversity of life we see on this planet. There's not a lot of "wiggle room" here. If evolution is not a fact and therefore the ToE is non-applicable, pretty much the only other option is some form of creation. So his "independent corrorboration" is not all that independent.Then you give us this beauty: In that case, I can give you some more independant cooroboration. I once asked my 19 month old nephew if he was a creationist. He dropped his bottle, tripped over it, and then said "no" (I assumed in response to my question, but I didn't really follow up. Why do that. After all, he gave me the answer I wanted). Later on I asked him if he thought that maybe we evolved over millions and millions of years. All he did was look at me funny and then pee in his diaper. So there you have it....more independant cooroboration...Evolution is not true!
Some synonyms of corroboration are: validation, justification, legalization, and confirmation. Finding someone that independently supports your views doesn't validate, justify, legalize, or confirm them in any way. It simply means that you have found someone that agrees with you about certain things. Find yourself a practicing evolutionary biologist that can scientifically support your claims and then you would have independent cooroboration.Then you said: Boy, that lucky Milton just can't lose can he.And you completely ignored everything about the Thylacine, Grey wolf skull comparison. Why is that?

Willowtree: Sorry...I was only trying to be a bit humorous while introducing an analogy about sources. My point was this....Just cuz someone says or writes something, that doesn't make it true. Not necessarily. He is flat out wrong. To say I simply disagree implies that it's more a matter of opinion or interpretation. That is not the case here. BS! Don't you accuse me of that Willowtree. I never attacked Milton as a person. I attacked the evidence of his that you presented and told you why it was wrong.
And where do you get off stating such a boldface lie. Who, exactly, are you talking to here? The people that read and contribute to this site know that what you have just said is out and out crappola. Look back at almost any post on this wedsite and see who presents scientific evidence in support of their claims. While you're at it, also who see who uses sound scientific evidence to refute the claims of the other side. Any time a creationist puts forth some kind of evidence either in support of creationism or in an attempt to discredit evolution, we give scientifically sound reasons why they are incorrect. That's called "attacking" the data. Just because you choose to ignore it (or don't understand it) doesn't make it an attack on the data provider. Sure, we may occasionally say something disparaging about the data provider, but it's relatively rare and usually the result of provocation (like now, for example). Don't toss around accusations this pathetic unless you're prepared to back them up. And yes, I do see the irony in this paragraph...but I was stunned when you made your statement and felt I had to set the record straight. You're joking right? A little humor like I tried? I'll make this simple. If Milton claims that the Thylacine skull is identical to the Grey wolf skull, he is wrong. It's not my opinion that he his wrong. I'm not interperting the data in another way that may cause confusion between the two of us. He is wrong. And I told you WHY he is wrong. I know that you have since withdrawn this evidence, but you have accused me of ignoring the evidence and attacking the person, so I'll ask you to read again my post #139 where I laid out some evidence against the skull comparison claim.
So you see, WIllowtree, I did attack the evidence, not the person. Big deal. What's you point? My brother is a rocket scientist and has an IQ that would probably rival Miltons. But you know what? He doesn't know squat about evolution, nor does he pretend to.[This message has been edited by FliesOnly, 01-12-2004]