Lothian
should be banned
but....we know Geilser included embarrassing arguments about the NT writers; that means his arguments about science are true.....
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
- Thread starter DOC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible evidence new testament
- Status
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Mojo has been kind enough to provide just such a thread for you.
Why aren't you there already?
Everyone else manages to post in multiple other threads.
Not only that, but everyone else manages to make worthwhile posts in multiple other threads.
That you haven't managed a single worthwhile post in a single thread is indeed a problem, but it's yours alone.
Why is that, DOC?
Because the burden of proof is yours, DOC.
Do you need to have 'Burden of Proof' explained to you yet again?
Did DOC Bingo teach you nothing?
You appear to have forgotten the thread topic completely, DOC.
Here it is for you in nice big letters:
Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.
Please stay on topic.
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
Well, I haven't read the books, but if he is anything about his evolution denying collegues, it quite certainly consist of pages and pages of misunderstanding and representing the science...
Because 4 bucks (not counting shipping) is a bit of money already. I generally spend less than that per dinner and, with I could probably catch a movie with that...
For that sum of money, I could quite probably get a book actually written by an actual researcher in the field, somebody that put the time and effort to acquire the education on the subject and still work on the subject and have no interest in representing is field for some stupid apologetics...
Yeah, see, I've read just everything about the 'problems about evolution', including the work of "revered" deniers such as comfort or Hovind. So far, everything I came across is the product of crass-understanding, willful ignorance and downright lying.
Here is the thing, the science of evolution is accepted as our best model by the vast majority of biologist (vast as in no demonstrably different from 100% of them). Virtually the totality of people working in biological science, studying the field, working on the field, using this science every day, consider it works and consider it our best understanding of how nature work.
No you have a handful of deniers with an agenda, most of these deniers have never studied the subject, none of them I am aware of actually work in science anymore, and none of them were ever able to publish a peer reviewed paper supporting their ideas.
So, it takes quite a bit of special pleading, and of course, arrogance, to favor these deniers against the scientific establishement.
Also, it has nothing to do with why we can not know if the New Testament writers told the truth and so is, as the spirit of Athen pointed out, quite a few fins out of a scarlet Clupeidae.
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
Doc, as usual, has some advice:
"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. "
Muncaster is also the author of the book "Why Does God Allow Suffering? (Examine The Evidence®)"
Yes, folks, Muncaster is prepared to show us the EVIDENCE for why god allows suffering.
See, what we MUST NOT do, to solve the problems with evolution theory, is to examine the physical evidence (what we see in the rocks, the traces of extinct life, and what we see in living forms) integrate it, if we can, with previous data on physical evidence, and if we cannot, re-examine the original physical evidence, and then if necessary modify or even discard the previous theory if we are able to define a better theory.
No. We must instead ignore the physical data, burn the biology books , staff the universities with priests, and only have textbooks that bear the imprimatur of a committee of fundamentalist Christians.
Sure. Fools that can't even distinguish between
- evidence of someone's opinion, written in a text, and
- evidence as seen in the physical world around us.
Sure. They should be the arbiters of what we teach our children.
Sure.
I hate it when these ignoramuses grab the terms of the scientific method and subvert them to the purposes of their own mystical hoodoo.
It seems what we absolutely must do is go back to the Old Testament for enlightenment and explanation. We must destroy 400 years of science.
We must emulate the Ayatollahs, who really know how to ru(i)n a country. Except we'll post the likes of Doc to a position of authority, to determine the Truth. The Muslims, of course, have it all wrong.
For example, we would have to throw away all books on biology, and teach The Truth: e.g., a bat is a bird.
But that's GOOD! All taxonomy is suspect. The scientific method, with its emphasis on making sense of the physical data we see, is wrong, it's the work of Satan. Only the words of a particular bunch of Iron Age priests can be trusted.
And Doc is the Queen of Romania.
"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. "
Muncaster is also the author of the book "Why Does God Allow Suffering? (Examine The Evidence®)"
Yes, folks, Muncaster is prepared to show us the EVIDENCE for why god allows suffering.
See, what we MUST NOT do, to solve the problems with evolution theory, is to examine the physical evidence (what we see in the rocks, the traces of extinct life, and what we see in living forms) integrate it, if we can, with previous data on physical evidence, and if we cannot, re-examine the original physical evidence, and then if necessary modify or even discard the previous theory if we are able to define a better theory.
No. We must instead ignore the physical data, burn the biology books , staff the universities with priests, and only have textbooks that bear the imprimatur of a committee of fundamentalist Christians.
Sure. Fools that can't even distinguish between
- evidence of someone's opinion, written in a text, and
- evidence as seen in the physical world around us.
Sure. They should be the arbiters of what we teach our children.
Sure.
I hate it when these ignoramuses grab the terms of the scientific method and subvert them to the purposes of their own mystical hoodoo.
It seems what we absolutely must do is go back to the Old Testament for enlightenment and explanation. We must destroy 400 years of science.
We must emulate the Ayatollahs, who really know how to ru(i)n a country. Except we'll post the likes of Doc to a position of authority, to determine the Truth. The Muslims, of course, have it all wrong.
For example, we would have to throw away all books on biology, and teach The Truth: e.g., a bat is a bird.
But that's GOOD! All taxonomy is suspect. The scientific method, with its emphasis on making sense of the physical data we see, is wrong, it's the work of Satan. Only the words of a particular bunch of Iron Age priests can be trusted.
And Doc is the Queen of Romania.
Last edited:
Sun Countess
Appearance of intelligence
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,154
That's a lot of theory he manages to dismantle in 23 pages. Why do all these universities continue to train physicists when so much of their working knowledge can be so easily and summarily dismissed in 23 pages by a guy who "figured out" their weak points? Do you really think Geisler knows more about physics than Hawking and Einstein?
If Geisler's arguments are so compelling, why aren't they teaching them at the university level? It would seem that 23 pages of material would be a lot quicker and easier to teach than even the first semester of introductory physics, especially if it's all wrong anyway.
Simon39759
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,285
Are you Expelled baiting?
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
And Geisler let it stand. He didn't care enough to fact-check his own book?
Lothian
should be banned
All I know is that you read the introduction to the book off the internet, and some of the excerpts I've brought in.
Name all of the errors you found, and since you haven't proven that the non religious statement by Frank Turek was wrong that doesn't count.
Last edited:
If the worse you can say about Norman Geisler is that he didn't check a statement his co writer made about the origin of a non religious word (that might have been wrong -- I still have seen no proof it was wrong) then I'll be happy with that.
Lothian
should be banned
I can say a lot worse.
His reasons for believing that the NT writers told the truth are pathetic (see the terrible examples in the O.P). There is not a scrap of evidence provided, simply extremely poor arguments.
Take the number one argument “The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves”. How anyone can take this to be serious proof of the existance of the supernatural Jesus/Zombie described in the bible is beyond me.
Somehow he seems to think a number of poor arguments add up to something more substantial. He is wrong.
zooterkin} Originally Posted by joobz Yet said:
This is still not proving Frank Turek wrong because you are not dividing the word univeritas the way Frank Turek did. From yours and Joobz explantation we have no idea how the word universitas came about.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Try reading the link.
The word evolved from the ancient Latin universus, through the middle Latin universitatem (universitas in the nominative case), through Old French universitei, to modern French université, to modern English university. The etymolygy is clear, unambiguous, and well understood.
Turek was wrong, and Geisler was wrong not to check. It's Geisler's name on the book, it's his responsibility to see that it's factually correct.
Last edited:
Well, when I wrote the 1st post it was a spur of the moment thing. If I would have known this thread was going to become what it has I would have spent much more time on it. And remember I was trying to condense a 22 page chapter into 1 post. Geisler gives much more detail than I did concerning the 5 reasons I mentioned in the 1st post.
Lothian
should be banned
We do it comes from the Latin.
Oxford Latin dictionary
universitas, universitatis, n
declension: 3, gender: F
1. corporate body, community
2. over-all aspect
3. universe, sum of all things
4. whole
The argument that it is a combination of Unity and diversity does not hold water when you look up the words in Latin.
Oxford Latin dictionary
Unity = unanimitas, unanimitatis
Diversity = differentia, differentiae,
A latin hybrid of those two would not be universitas.
- Status