The material about CPU is totally biased and often inaccurate. It was taken from the web sites of persons that object to CPU on philosophical grounds. There exist a number of professors teaching at leading universities that have degrees from CPU, including several leading scientists. Furthermore, the government agency that closed down CPU was itself abolished. Also, I have few credits from CPU compared to the other Universities that I have attended (I am close to my ninth degree) and this is ignored. I have submitted parts of my CPU degree to a major medical school (and was given an A for it). Some of the rhetoric reminds me of when I was active in MENSA (which included many creationists) . Bright people can defend almost any side of an argument but when examined carefully does not hold up. I will post my article on CPU when it is completed.
My response to Gerhard Besier
by Jerry Bergman 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Really Jerry, why does it take a Christian view to behave and act in a scholarly manner? Do you think that Besier acted in a scholarly manner? The response here has been to try to justify him and condemn those he unjustly attacked. Also, there is no way I can respond to all that was said here in the near future. I have my research at the medical College to worry about and my biology classes that I am teaching (both which I am behind in).
-
funkyderek
The material about CPU is totally biased and often inaccurate. It was taken from the web sites of persons that object to CPU on philosophical grounds.
You mean the California Department of Consumer Affairs? On what philosophical grounds do they object to CPU? Their philosophy seems to be "to promote and protect the interests of California consumers".
There exist a number of professors teaching at leading universities that have degrees from CPU, including several leading scientists.
Any we might have heard of?
Furthermore, the government agency that closed down CPU was itself abolished.
That's correct (sort of). The Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education that closed down CPU was replaced by - wait for it - the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education which supported the decision and is still in existence. (See http://www.bppve.ca.gov/) Sloppy work, Jerry.
Do you think that Besier acted in a scholarly manner? The response here has been to try to justify him and condemn those he unjustly attacked.
I'm not sure anyone here had even heard of “Professor Dr. Dr. Gerhard Besier” before you began this thread. Nobody's tried to justify him or condemn you, only pointed out the gaping holes in your arguments.
-
funkyderek
clash said:
They present a world view that is not at all cohiesive nor consistant yet they religiously and tyrannically expect others to follow thier thier reason or lack of with out any consideration to logical or scientific examination.
And this from a self-proclaimed presuppositionalist
-
Valis
Jerry, where I come from has little to do w/rhetoric and much to do w/standards of accreditation. I'm glad that a major U gave you an A for some of your work, but what about your PHD dissertation? How did it rate among unbiased scholars? I mean after all, any college that is worth their salt should be able to crank out PHDs that can stand the heat of defending their work. Furthermore, I noticed that one unaccredited U listed on the info I provided had 21 of 74 faculty members there from CPU...Why? I'll tell you why...because they couldn't find jobs teaching elsewhere...*LOL* Accredited institutions risk their own reputations by having those kinds of faculty members aboard, much less give them credence when writing scholarly papers that are going to get dissected by people who actually engage in real scientific endeavors. You say you have very few credits from CPU, um OK, did you put in your graduate hours there at least? Any decent U is going to want you to do some serious work for them before granting a degree. So you working on your ninth degree? May I ask from what U? I always tell my students they should go to another college if they want a further degree...eventually you get complacent and the buddy system kicks in...It becomes like a mutual admiration society and getting a degree becomes a matter of who you know, not what you know.
We can talk about CPU from a purely academic standpoint and come to the same conclusions that those who have philosophical problems with it for several reasons...If you look at the health related degrees they have granted you have to figure that many of their courses overlapped for differing programs. If they were cranking out goofballs who think holistic medicine really benefits the greater mankind, scamming patients and getting caught, then I have to question the science and philosophy of an institution that grants a PHD in 4 months. You see how this would cause problems for anyone who had a clue as to how one goes about working toward a PHD?
BTW, I read your essay on poisons, but I didn't see the point in any of it? It was like reading a primer for someone who had been cryogenicaly frozen for some hundred years or so, or an encyclopedia entry for 8th graders, IMO. Did I miss your intent in there somewhere? As well, do you really think that having your articles listed on the True Origins website does anything for your credibility? One could see how utterly biased your "scientific" view must be and how unwilling your detractors might be to give you the benefit of the doubt. Academia is a "go for the jugular" kind of world and if you don't gird yourself w/credibility then you mind as well give up the ghost! I'm sure this is old news to you, but hey its all good and I hope your plans for a ninth degree go well.
Sincerely,District Overbeer
-
Abaddon
Let us be clear on the order of events.
Jerry, you posted an article that lamented the terrible accusations put upon Creationists by those naughty bad Evolutionists. You defended yourself in one particular case.
When I responded, I pointed out examples where Creationists clearly had lied, gave a fairly random sampling of Creationist material online showing the bad science that Creationists are frequently accused of, cases where a sheen of credibility was given research that simply hadn’t floated in mainstream science, cases with circular reasoning, cases with red herrings; quite a bit of evidence to counter the thrust of your argument, that such criticisms were not justified.
You then posted a book review detailing a theory of variable c that, even if it turned out to be true, did not support the Creationist argument one jot.
Rather than counter one point I had made, you did exactly what I had shown to be behaviour that justified Creationism’s bad name. You seem to me to make it appear something answered a point I had raised, when (if one took the time to look into it) it did not. If this was intentional, it was despicable, if it was accidental it was BAD SCIENCE.
I have to admit it made me smile on my way home on the train the other day. I find it ironic.
You then made the statement;
Bright people can defend almost any side of an argument but when examined carefully does not hold up.
I feel that sentence implies you have examined the arguments made here carefully and found that they do not hold up.
You have done no such thing.
You still have not shown one point I have made here to be false, nor any other points others have made as far as I can determine.
To cap it all you say;
The response here has been to try to justify him and condemn those he unjustly attacked.
If you cannot give one example of this behaviour you describe you have either deliberately or unintentionally deceived people with that statement.
Let us be clear here. I am not calling you names. I am describing what you have done here and giving my opinion of it. If you have not done these things, point out my error and defend yourself. Stop avoiding dealing with the response your post generated. Truth need not hide. I find it a little ironic you say you are busy. I am sure you are, but am equally sure if you could make a decent defence you would have.
Ah clash, who’s my favourite presuppositionalist then?
You will notice that most athiest, pagans, (psuedo free-thinkers) and no it alls are not really honest and not really thoughtfull about thier objections to a creator.
Please give an example. It is easy to make accusations; Jerry was upset about people making allegations. Unfortunately he has not shown one of the examples others or myself have given that validate these allegations to be false. I am sure if YOUR accusation is true it will be easy for you to give examples we cannot refute. If you cannot, you are misinformed or deceitful.
They will make assertions and not really think through thier conclusions most athiest on this board are grosely inconsistant and selfrefuting.
That means you really HAVE to defend the allegations you are making or you will fit your own accusation “They will make assertions and not really think through thier conclusions”,
They present a world view that is not at all cohiesive nor consistant yet they religiously and tyrannically expect others to follow thier thier reason or lack of with out any consideration to logical or scientific examination.
If I recall correctly, as another has already pointed out, you are a presuppositionalist. I find this an entertaining read;
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/papol.html
Theocratic warfare me thinks? Given the description of your philosophy;
... your argument therefore runs;... the apologist must presuppose the truth of God's word from start to finish in his apologetic witness
http://www.lebensquellen.de/themen/theology/apologetik/01ae5193190f02713.html
1/ The Bible is true
2/ See 1/ above
That really seems to me to be consistent with your description “reason or lack of with out any consideration to logical or scientific examination”.
I think you have something in your eye…
-
Valis
They present a world view that is not at all cohiesive nor consistant yet they religiously and tyrannically expect others to follow thier thier reason or lack of with out any consideration to logical or scientific examination.
Dude...don't slam the Christian YEC's that way...it just isn't nice...*LOL*
sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
Eric
J.B.
Plaintiff was first hired by Bowling Green State University (BGSU) for the 1973-1974 school year Department of Educational Foundations and Inquiry (EDFI) of the College of Education. He was initially hired as an assistant professor but was reduced to the rank of instructor later during the school year when he did not receive his doctorate as soon as he had expected.
When did BGSU expect you to achieve your doctorate?
When did you actually achieve your doctorate?
While you are at it, tell me why you were denied tenure at Bowling Green, and, as I understand it expelled from your position there.
Eric
-
Jerry Bergman
Eric
When did BGSU expect you to achieve your doctorate? Sept 1973
When did you actually achieve your doctorate? June 1975 (my thesis took longer than expected).
While you are at it, tell me why you were denied tenure at Bowling Green, and, as I understand it expelled from your position there. A start is the following (the brief submitted in my case actually an abbreviated version).
-
Jerry Bergman
In response to the above I posted the response to Besier in answer to the following form another post on this website.
Since Dr. Bergman has come on this board, he's in the kitchen, and should be ready to take the heat.
That's why I quoted Besier on this. He even gives the file number in his book.
So these are hard facts. The only response I have seen so far is a Jerry Bergman who laments about an unanswered letter. Maybe he can post his letter here or answer the facts here on the board.
And who is Dr. Beiser??
Prof. Besier (sic!) teaches "Historical Theology" and "Research on Religions" (I don't know the exact term for "Konfessionskunde") at the University of Heidelberg. He has promoted in Theology as well as in History. He also has a diploma in Psychology.