Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mojo said:
Has he {Norman Geislser} figured out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but Geisler (the author of book cited in post #1) has figured out the Big Bang, relativity, Cosmic Rebound Theory, Steven Hawking's Imaginary time, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enough to write about them and to give weak points in some of the theories.
 
DOC said:
Probably not, but Geisler (the author of book cited in post #1) has figured out the Big Bang, relativity, Cosmic Rebound Theory, Steven Hawking's Imaginary time, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enough to write about them and to give weak points in some of the theories.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
DOC said:
Probably not, but Geisler (the author of book cited in post #1) has figured out the Big Bang, relativity, Cosmic Rebound Theory, Steven Hawking's Imaginary time, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enough to write about them and to give weak points in some of the theories.
Click to expand...


And I'm sure you can provide a brief explanation.
 
joobz said:
I've raised this issue before about Geisler, but I figure this thread is all about repetition.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PC...heJS5WbEJbONJCOlJAN&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
"The term "university" is actaully a composite of the words "unity" and "diversity". WHen one attends a university, he is supposed to be guided in the quest to find unity in diversity- namely how all the diverse fields of knowledge(the arts, philosophy, physical sciences, mathematics, etc.) fit together to provide a unified picture of life. Instead of universities, we have pluraversities.."

Yet, we know that university is actually a truncation of
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=university
universitas magistrorum et scholarium, or community of masters and scholars.

This may seem like a small point, but in terms of honesty and scholarship it is huge. The authors who wrote the book that makes that argument have no interest in verifying the claims made. They made what was clearly a fun bit of sophistry, but it has zero relationship to the actual origins of the university. As such, the attempt they made at claiming modern universities have "lost their way" was built upon fiction and air. They lied in the first few pages. WHy shouldn't they lie the rest of the book?
Click to expand...

Joobz for about the fifth time you are not going back far enough; you are stopping at the Latin word universus and not stating how that word came about from uni + versus. And even if there was a mistake (which you haven't proven) Geisler didn't write that sentence. It was written by his co-writer Frank Turek.
 
DOC said:
Probably not, but Geisler (the author of book cited in post #1) has figured out the Big Bang, relativity, Cosmic Rebound Theory, Steven Hawking's Imaginary time, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enough to write about them and to give weak points in some of the theories.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
And I'm sure you can provide a brief explanation.
Click to expand...

That's for another thread, but if you really wanted to know you can buy a used copy of the book for $4 on Amazon and it's between pages 72 and 94.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Joobz for about the fifth time you are not going back far enough; you are stopping at the Latin word universus and not stating how that word came about from uni + versus. And even if there was a mistake (which you haven't proven) Geisler didn't write that sentence. It was written by his co-writer Frank Turek.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you defend this. It shows that your need to defend the book extends beyond any and all reason.
But, let's tackle your points one at a time.

1.) versus does not mean diversity. uni doesn't mean unity. Therefore, it is impossible for University by itself to be a compound word.

2.) It was the origin of the word University, which was a simplification of a phrase meaning community of scholar. Not anything about the supposed combination of the words unity and diversity.


It was in the book, DOC. It was the first chapter. It is simply and completely false. It was nothing more than a bit of made up sophistry to insult modern education systems, while Ironically demonstrating a lack of education. If they don't care enough about being truthful about simple word origins, why sould we think they'd be truthful about ANYTHING?


DOC, to those of us who do teach, being truthful and honest means something. IT clearly doesn't to you or Geisler. But to me, it does.
 
DOC said:
Probably not, but Geisler (the author of book cited in post #1) has figured out the Big Bang, relativity, Cosmic Rebound Theory, Steven Hawking's Imaginary time, and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle enough to write about them and to give weak points in some of the theories.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
And I'm sure you can provide a brief explanation.
Click to expand...

DOC said:
That's for another thread...
Click to expand...


Here you go: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168555
 
Mojo said:
Here you go: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168555
Click to expand...

I can't even get to all the posts in this thread and you want be to argue in another about physics. Why don't you spend the $4 for a used copy of the book and then say why Geisler is wrong if you think he is.

And if you go to Amazon you should also buy apologist Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence". He also talks a lot about modern science, especially the problems with evolution theory.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
I can't even get to all the posts in this thread and you want be to argue in another about physics. Why don't you spend the $4 for a used copy of the book and then say why Geisler is wrong if you think he is.
Click to expand...

How can we tell it's any good if you won't tell us how many pages are in it?:p
 
DOC said:
I can't even get to all the posts in this thread and you want be to argue in another about physics. Why don't you spend the $4 for a used copy of the book and then say why Geisler is wrong if you think he is.

And if you go to Amazon you should also buy apologist Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence". He also talks a lot about modern science, especially the problems with evolution theory.
Click to expand...

given the fact that his book I did read has blatant factual errors and loaded with terrible logic, why would I trust his attempts at science?
 
DOC said:
I can't even get to all the posts in this thread and you want be to argue in another about physics. Why don't you spend the $4 for a used copy of the book and then say why Geisler is wrong if you think he is.

And if you go to Amazon you should also buy apologist Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence". He also talks a lot about modern science, especially the problems with evolution theory.
Click to expand...

But as your posts are out there to see, You repeatedly bring up points that others have refuted by presenting logically consistent reasoning or evidence that shows that they are not valid. You ignore those posts, just like Simons and my post in refernce to Greenleaf. Your silence on the matters raised there is telling. Greenleafs apologetics that you linked was rife with logal fallacies. We invited you to show us the error of our reasoning and you have yet to respond. You instead headed off in a different direction. This would seem to imply that you CAN'T refute our argument and instead of taking the intellectualy honest approach and either research the topic more and address the issues at hand or conceed that you can't find fault (I would even accept the 'agree to disagree' position as intellectually honest) you have ignored them as if they did not exist and are heading off on to other topics that were equally well addressed many many months ago on this VERY SAME THREAD. No I won't go back and dig them up because you done care will stick your fingers in your ears and say Nuh-uh.

I would like to hear your opinion on Simons and my analysis of Greenleafs essay. Not more information on Greenleaf, show us where we erred in our analysis of his position.
 
DOC said:
I can't even get to all the posts in this thread and you want be to argue in another about physics. Why don't you spend the $4 for a used copy of the book and then say why Geisler is wrong if you think he is.

And if you go to Amazon you should also buy apologist Ralph Muncaster's book "Examine the Evidence". He also talks a lot about modern science, especially the problems with evolution theory.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your complaint here. It is you that are reintroducing all these topic into this thread. If you want to keep the discussion focused onone or two areas then by all means stick to one or two areas. You are the one generting all the divergins topics.

Besides others have said why Geiselr is wrong and you haven't effectively countered the argument as to why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom