The biggest problem in discussion with WILLOWTREE is that he doesn't seem to know what evidence is, or how you critically examine a problem using evidence.
Does the fact that you are an atheist and I am a theist have anything to do with this comment ?
IOW, any evidence which disproves your worldview and its sacred cows is not evidence.
Atheist Professor Kai Neilson argues that any evidence which supports the existence of God is irrelevant because the very concept of God is incoherent = your argument in the blue box.
Now re-read my comment before last.
The only problem is atheo-evos incessantly claim they are open to evidence supporting God. The GP proves they are not. The GP proves that Neilson is right. The Neilson argument supports the Romans claim of God-sense removal.
Most of his arguments are arguments from authority, often with little to no understanding of how the authority came to their conclusion.
Atheist rant.
He seems to think that science proceeds by authorities refuting one another directly. By example, in the LLM thread he doesn't see the value in measuring the LLM on a map, and seems to believe that until someone produces expert testimony specifically stating "Smyth's measurements were incorrect", Smyth numbers are "irrefutable and proven", as WILLOWTREE likes to say.
Intentional misrepresentation.
Where did I say that SMYTH'S numbers are "irrefutable and proven" ?
I have always said that measurements are valid.
I have always said that a ruler and any map is a laughable method to determine LLM.
I have always maintained that IF Lindum's measurements are valid then why not Rutherford/Cole/Lemesurier's measurements of the height ?
Cole measured in 1925.(in Egypt)
Rutherford in the 1950's.(in Egypt)
Lemesurier in the 70's confirmed their perfect congruity.
But a ruler and any map is valid but not the above.
By the way, Smyth never claimed the GP along the LLM. I went out and bought his book and discovered that he only claimed the Nile-Delta to be in the center of the Earth's land mass - my bad.
None of this is meant to be insulting - it is just my assessment of his logic. I've tried discussing these issues with WILLOWTREE directly, particularly in the PROOF OF GOD thread. I was met with hostility.
You only say it not meant to be insulting because it is.
Making general comments about hostilities in a debate about the existence of the God of the Bible: WOW ! (two way street obviously).
The only hostility came from the opposition as I proved every claim except the LLM.
All your criticism is gutted by the fact that you are an atheist and I am a theist.
I just became aware of this topic via an email.
How unethical to engage this type of personal attack especially seeing how I am unable to defend myself. The topic title probably violates the privacy clause that this board supposedly enforces.
I am what NosyNed said, "classic" creationist. I liked that.
I guess there is an Oscar Wilde quote that applies here but it escapes me.
WILLOWTREE
This message has been edited by Steal Away, 01-03-2005 21:54 AM
™ Version 4.2
