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.
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 ?
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.
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 ?
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.