Message 31 of 35 (156079) 11-04-2004 10:05 PM

Reply to: Message 25 by dpardo 11-04-2004 6:12 PM

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. (The other possibility is that he acts ignorant of such things since they tend to work against his statements).

Most of his arguments are arguments from authority, often with little to no understanding of how the authority came to their conclusion.

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.

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.

Perhaps you'll have better luck, if you are up to the challenge.

Message 32 of 35 (173576) 01-03-2005 9:53 PM

Reply to: Message 31 by pink sasquatch 11-04-2004 10:05 PM

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.

Atheist rant.

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.

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

Message 34 of 35 (173584) 01-03-2005 10:00 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by Steal Away 01-03-2005 9:53 PM

To others, do not reply to thie above message.

WILLOWTREE, if you wish to have your rights restored, contact the Admins and ask to be returned to the BootCamp. If you can show proper behaviour you may be allowed into the rest of the forums.

Message 35 of 35 (173717) 01-04-2005 10:09 AM

Reply to: Message 34 by AdminJar 01-03-2005 10:00 PM

It would be wonderful to be able to engage WT in a rational discussion of his positions, but if the Boot Camp experience has taught us anything it's the extreme unlikelihood of persuading an irrationalist to change his stripes.

An explanation, in this case by way of example, is important because EvC Forum has a vested interest in not only being fair, but also of appearing fair. WillowTree says, "I have always said that a ruler and any map is a laughable method to determine LLM (Longest Land Meridian)." Such offerings leave one nonplussed. How does one respond to this? Does the discussion really have to begin at such a ludicrous level that we first have to convince WillowTree that one can use maps and rulers to discover actual distances? The mind just boggles at the possibility of someone who denies that maps can be used for this purpose. Or even worse, at the possibility of someone who is so taken with his own beliefs that he would rather deny the obvious and be thought retarded or insane before giving them up.

WillowTree's permanent banning, and the banning of all likeminded benighted souls, will stand. EvC Forum will not be playing host to nonsense discussions.