My response to Gerhard Besier

by Jerry Bergman 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • hooberus

    I have been accused of all kinds of things here while defending creation. I wish that people would more carefully read my posts becfore accusing me of things.

    Here is the latest one in which I was accused of using Red Herrings, and straw man arguments.

    Abaddon said:

    ... answer the issues Jerry, please. Hooberus has blown his credibility (IMHO) entirely by abadondoning Bible chronology when it suits. I do hope you won't blow yours by evading the specific issues I raised.

    This is another false accusation as I point out on the above linked thread.
  • hooberus

    Also the tem "intellectually dishonest" is frequently applied here to creationists, who disagree with evolutionary interpretation of data.

  • peacefulpete

    Jerry...Thank you for providing the link to the Skeptic tank site. While these guys are a bit more vitriolic then I find helpful they do provide a service that helps thousands make more carefully thought out decisions. A word search "creationist lies"" will as suggested offer many more oportunities to learn why many thinking people have learned to live without superstition and the pseudoscience of creationism.

  • hillary_step


    I can understand why you are a little upset at some of the comments directed at you. What I find hard to understand is why you started this particular thread on this particular Board. Have I missed something?

    Best regards - HS

    PS -

    This is out and out slander and this kind of behavior is one reason why I moved from an atheistic world view to a Christian one.
    I hope all the other reasons were a little less irrational. Presumably if you had been treated a little more graciously you may have remained an atheist? Perhaps you ought to thank God for the atheists that drove you to him!

  • Abaddon

    This is great; Jerry starts a thread about how unfair it is Creationists have such a bad press. He then shows one occasion where this seem to be unfair.

    I respond to this with examples of why some Creationists have fully deserved the reputation they have - and it is Jerry that said Creationists have this reputation.

    When he responds, it is with a book review.... which does not support Creationism in any way, even if the author's speculation regarding the variability of c IS true.

    After I posted yesterday, on the train home I realised this was rather funny. If you want to be picky, Jerry posting that review is either;

    a) An honest mistake

    b) Scientific ignorance; thinking that any theory of variability of c would support Creationism

    c) A Red Herring; presenting a theory about variability of c in the hope it will make people think a criticism has been addressed AND KNOWING IT DOESN'T

    There is a grey area between a) and b) where someone can honestly think they are countering a point, but where if they knew more about the subject better or looked at the material they were referencing more diligently they would realise it did not.

    I am not saying which one it is as I cannot know Jerry's mind, but it's ironic that 2/3rds of the possibilities are EXACTLY the kind of reasons that give Creationists the reputation they have, as I demonstrated previously.

    Not one of the examples I gave has been addressed.

    And then, to make it even funnier, hooberus comes along complaining about me saying he's lost credibility due to abandoning Biblical chronology... we'll wait and see how he explains it on the thread referenced. In that thread, despite the evidence presented that shows bristlecone pines would of had to be alive and standing during and after the Flood WITH ANY POSSIBLE DATE FOR THE FLOOD, he states he believes all bristlecone pines are post-Flood without providing any evidence for this other than his assertion.

    And then he complains about the term "intellectually dishonest" being applied to Creationists!

    And STILL not one of the examples I gave has been addressed.

    Rather than dealing with the issues raised, Jerry posts this;

    As once said, even is there is no Christian God, one is usually better off believing in him (as is society).

    Yes? I disagree. Christian society might give people the illusion at the micro level of being better, but if you look at the macro level you have corruption, crime, war, hypocricy, greed, bigotry, etc. displayed just as in non-Christian societies. And at various point being a different religion, or female with no realtives and land was very often a terminal experience in Christian Society. Quite how Jerry can state this without a specific defense of the examples I've given above (where Christians are shown to be just as liable to error and deceit as the next man), I don't know.

    Do you know what is involved in earning a Ph.D. in biology?

    Pretty much. I'm a humble BA(Hons), but my degree classification could equally have been BSc due to it's make-up, so I only have observation to go on. I have one friend with a Ph.D in Biology and I know how long it took her to get it. I have another aquaintence with a Ph.D; after being involved with the Lucky Strike Motorbike Team as a design engineer of some sort, he went to University, did his BSc in two years, finished his MSc in a year, and took his Ph.D in some equally truncated time period... whilst making a racing Harley at home, making crossbows out of titanium from stock he had left over, rebuilding a Ferrari 308GTB, and editing several books on cars and bikes... in his 'spare time'. Bad example though, as he's one of two people I've met and maybe three or four I know who I would describe as scarily intelligent (with the virtually compulsory social skills of a tree sloth).

    How do you know what my course work and research at CPU involved? Of course you don't.

    Jerry, you are STILL talking about the 'rubber stamp' of educational qualification you have. I am talking about what you try to put that stamp on. I don't care if you have a Ph.D or not, I care about the accuracy of the arguements you make, and give bonus points for elegence and wit. Stop talking about your qualification and use it to defend your viewpoints.

    Why do atheists and agnostics focus on mocking and attacking the person of others?

    With some of the examples given I don't have to explain this, do I? Bar rules; a dumb arguement is a dumb arguement, whether it's made in a bar or online, whether it's made by a mechanic or a Ph.D. Bad arguements get laughed at, really dumb ones get ridiculed. You don't like it, make good arguements OR show why your arguement IS good. Just complaining you're arguement is being laughed at will not help, you have to DEFEND your argument.

    If you make a good arguement you are unlikely to be laughed at even if you turn out to be wrong. It's the acme of 'discussion' when this happens. To me, what some Creationists do is like answering the question; "Is there a Trinity" with the answer "kipper". You'd laugh at me if I did that, I'm sure. And unless I could show you "kipper" was a reasonable answer, you'd have every right.

    I am now working on a paper about CPU (which is not defunct but operates in another state) , and when I put it online your response will be, "well OK but I found another area to put you down".

    You miss the point, again. If you put up a paper that can stand up, it can't be laughed at. It you put up a paper that vindicates yourself in one instance of a perception you yourself admit that people have, and then don't address ONE example I've given of where the perceptions are true, then people are unlikely to have any interest in your self-vindication and a lot of amusement in your avoidance. Ph.D doesn't stand for "Don't laugh at me".

    And you started this topic, your paper is entitled " Are All Creationists Liars?"

    So far, you've not really defended your viewpoint, as there are numerous examples given where they have lied or have authored supposedly scholastic work without the competence to do it, which is a form of deceit in my books. Kind of funny, the amoral lawless athiest bring Creationists to task for deceit...

    So, address the examples I gave to counter the tread you started. You want respect, that's the way to get it.

  • hillary_step


    I am not a creationist but I am a literalist it I inderstood Jerry to be using the Board to defend himself against accusations by a Gerhard Besier regarding his religious beliefs and the veracity of his educational credentials. I did not appreciate that this thread was in essence formulated to attack the ethics of those with evolutionary leanings. If it was, it fails and more resembles an upset at St.Trinians than a discource between two scientists.

    I take my leave - HS

  • funkyderek
    Jerry, perhaps the reason you get called a liar so often is because you appear to be so woefully ignorant of the fundamentals of a subject you claim to have a PhD in, that people come to the conclusion that you're deliberately twisting the facts to fit your religious beliefs. This is pure name calling.

    No it isn't. It's a claim that you appear to have less knowledge about biology than would reasonably be expected of someone who has a Ph.D. in the subject.

    As supporting evidence, I present the following:

    Your article on the dodo which was discussed here

    Your article on Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust which is based on such shoddy arguments and non sequiturs that it's barely worth discussing.

    From this thread:

    my response is we must have been created to find it [sex] pleasurable because if we didn't find it pleasurable we wouldn't ever have done it (and thus we would not have reproduced in the first place). Therefore, genes for enjoying sex must have existed from the beginning. Also, I know of no evidence that indicates that any animal enjoys sex for similar reasons. All the evidence is that it is instinctual, programmed, and not indulged in for pleasure. If any one knows of scientific research that supports the conclusion that animals enjoy sex for similar reasons, please inform the group.

    These and other simplistic arguments and assertions demonstrate an apparent lack of understanding of the basics of biology on your part and a motive other than the pursuit of truth.

    My claim above was simply that because of this, many people (not me) may think you are being deliberately deceptive rather than just ignorant.

    Those who know you better know that the real reason is that the now-defunct diploma mill where you got your "PhD" didn't teach you much about biology. This is out and out slander
    Jerry, that's the second time you've accused me of slandering you. I let it go the last time, but for the benefit of my reputation I'll provide evidence to support my assertions. Here's an article from the California Department of Consumer Affairs about the nonaccredited university you attended and why it was shut down in 2001 after operating without a license since 1997. Some of the reasons it was refused a license were that it:
  • awarded excessive credit for prior experiential learning to many students;
  • failed to employ duly qualified faculty; and
  • failed to meet various requirements for issuing Ph.D. degrees.
  • Now I know you got your "Ph.D." before CPU was closed down, but it was closed down after its first application for approval under new laws. Are you saying that between the time you received your "degree" and 1996 when the University's application was rejected, that it went from being an academically worthy instution providing accredited PhDs, to a diploma mill? If you are, and you can provide evidence that your degree from CPU unlike many others did in fact meet the accepted requirements of a PhD course, then I will retract my statement.

    this kind of behavior is one reason why I moved from an atheistic world view to a Christian one

    That's a very very poor reason to change beliefs, and yet another example of why people have a hard time believing you have a scientific background. It's such an utterly illogical and pointless statement that I'm at a complete loss as to why you made it.

    As once said, even is there is no Christian God, one is usually better off believing in him (as is society).

    This is simply staggering. I can't believe you could write something like that and still expect to be taken seriously. You think it's better to believe the way you do, regardless of whether it's true. No wonder people call you a liar. When you have no respect for truth, what do you expect?

    Do you know what is involved in earning a Ph.D. in biology?

    Well, at the very very least, I would expect it involves some understanding of the scientific method and a knowledge of the principles of natural selection (even if you inexplicably choose not to believe in them). That is why I have such a hard time believing that your "Ph.D." is worthy of the name.

    Why do atheists and agnostics focus on mocking and attacking the person of others? As one famous (now dead) atheist said "I am not a Christian and I can hate whoever I want to." In my experience that is sure true.

    Why, when your credentials and arguments are questioned do you try to make out that it's a personal attack against you, and why do you then retaliate by making attacks on the character of "atheists and agnostics"? Just what are you trying to prove?

    I am now working on a paper about CPU (which is not defunct but operates in another state)

    Yes, it now operates in Montana under the name of "Commonwealth Pacific University" where it is still unaccredited. Incidentally, Montana, unlike California, has no laws governing private college operations.

    I look forward to reading your paper.

  • Valis

    this kind of behavior is one reason why I moved from an atheistic world view to a Christian one

    Really Jerry, why does it take a Christian view to behave and act in a scholarly manner? Maybe because your Christian colleagues won't debate or refute your own creationist view? Otherwise, that makes no sense coming from someone who claims to be intelligent enough to espouse holding a PHD...

    eh...Seeing as I am involved with academia and have been involved in all aspects, including admissions, accreditation, etc. I was interested in CPU and what their deal is...Oh my! *LOL* If you look at the page below you will find most of their PHDs in health least one of their graduates got several degrees over the course of four months! I also looked at the standard work required for a PHD in Biology for several universities..besides the BS in biology that requires close to fifty hours in chemistry and biology classes, the masters program piles on at least another 18 to 24 graduate hours and the general requirements for a PHD in Biology are a bit rigorous..and certainly is not something anyone could finish in four months period!

    This one from Florida State U..and is generally the accepted norm with few exceptions.....

      1. After admission to doctoral candidacy, a minimum of twenty-four (24) semester hours of dissertation credit is required;
      2. Teaching requirement: Teaching experience in at least two different courses recommended by the supervisory committee and approved by the associate chair;
      3. Seminar requirement: three presentations, excluding the dissertation defense. Students are encouraged to give presentations at national and/or regional meetings. For further details, contact the department;
      4. Submission and approval of a doctoral proposal by major professor, supervisory committee, and associate chair;
      5. Successful completion of the preliminary doctoral examination;
      6. Submission of an acceptable dissertation;
      7. Successful defense of the dissertation.
      ..I'm not sure I would want to claim a degree from CPU in any case..much less base any credential on it...that's just asking to get hammered regardless of what you know..There is no way around having to stand up for your work AND your credentials...If you had a PHD from and accredited U at least that would get left out of refuting your work or the creationist business, but from where I stand, most scholars go back and look at the meat of your dissertation and from where you are coming from...Seeing CPU involved I'm sure puts many scholars off straight away and comes with its own stigma. If I said I got my degree in Astrophysics from Sally Struthers do you think NASA would even bother reading my presentations? Very unlikely.. Perhaps Jerry you could go to an accredited institution, submit the dissertation you submitted to CPU and see how it goes...That may be the only way you ever get out from under the cloud of CPU and their questionable methods of granting degrees.

      Eh more on CPU...

    1. Charles Bates, founder of Beyond Dieting, who acquired a Ph.D. in epidemiology from CPU in 1987 where his dissertation on environmental triggers and food allergies was supervised by C. Norman Shealy, M.D., founder of the American Holistic Medical Association. Between 1988 and 1993, Dr. Bates served as clinical director of a large outpatient chemical dependency treatment clinic.
    2. Frank J. Bracelin, said to have a Ph.D in Health Sciences and listed as a member of the Faculty of Life, Health, and Environmental Sciences at City University of Los Angeles, a school that is not accredited.
    3. Richard W. Boerstler, "PhD," co-author of, Life to Death, Harmonizing the Transition, who practices psychotherapy in Yarmouth, Massachusetts.
    4. Nancimarie Bride, RN, PhD, who does counseling Gateway Counseling Associates in Westfield, New Jersey, states that she received her "PhD in Counseling Psychology and Behavioral Science" in 1993 from CPU.
    5. Barry Broughton, NMD, BSc, PhD, who practices naturopathy in Olean, New York, has a "PhD in Health and Human Services from CPU and a naturopathic degree from nonaccredited Southern College of Naturopathic Medicine.
    6. Stephen Cherniske, who obtained a masters degree in nutrition in 1982. and represents himself as a "renowned health educator" and nutrition consultant. He cofounded the Oasis Wellness Network, a multilevel company that sells "The Ultimate Anti-Aging System" and other supplement products.
    7. Annemarie Colbin
    8. Arthur L. Copes , marketer of a questionable scoliosis treatment system, who describes himself as an "orthotist" with BS and PhD "degrees" in orthotics.
    9. Catherine J. Frompovitch, Ph.D., who practiced "nutritional consultation" in Richlandtown, Pennsylvania. Her publications described her as "a practicing natural nutritionist who has a Doctor of Science in Diet and Nutrition [and] a Doctor of Naturopathy." During the mid-1980s, she founded and directed the now-defunct Coalition for Alternative in Nutrition and Healthcare (CANAH), whose primary goal was passage of a Healthcare Rights Amendment" that would forbid Congress from restricting "any individual's right to choose and to practice the type of healthcare they shall elect for themselves or their children for the prevention or treatment of any disease, injury, illness or ailment of the body or the mind."
    10. Roman Frankel, "PhD," CCS, NCAC II, CBIS, CEAP, CCGC, who operates New Start Inc., and The Healing Place, Ltd., in Farmington Hills, Michigan, which offer training, treatment, and other services related to addictive disorders.
    11. Ron L. Fronk
    12. John Gray, "PhD," whose book "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus," has reportedly sold millions of copies, conducts seminars and sells books and tapes about relationships and personal growth.
    13. Michael H. Greene, "PhD," who acquired PhDs in counseling psychology and music composition in 1984. His Behavioral Systems, Inc. Web site states that for the past 21 years, he has maintained a private psychotherapy practice
      in the Northern Virginia/Washington, D.C. area and treated over 17,000 individuals with hypnosis. A letter from CPU's office of alumni affairs states that Greene enrolled in April 1984 and was awarded his "degrees" four months later.
    14. Grace Halloran, who directs a "visual healing program," states that she obtained a "PhD" in wholistic health science in 1977. Her recommended program includes nutrition, "eye-health exercises," "acupressure to the eyes," "stress free sight." "total body balancing," "microcurrent stimulation," and "color therapy."
    15. Gerti Heider, "PhD," RN, GAPN, CS, Assistant Professor, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey School of Nursing.
    16. Abrar, A. Khan, MB, BS. "PhD," Professor of Histology, University of Sint Eustatius.
    17. Gurucharan Singh Khalsa, "PhD," president of Khalsa Consultants, Inc., of San Diego, California, who offers coaching in yoga, meditation, and related practices.
    18. Monte Kline, founder and director of Pacific Health Centers, holds a "PhD in Nutrition & Wholistic Health Sciences." The Center's Web site described it as "a nonmedical health practice working with natural healing methods from a Christian perspective. More specifically, we integrate biblical principles of health in body, mind and spirit with computerized Electro-Dermal Testing for nutrient deficiencies, food sensitivities, toxicities and other health factors." In January 2002, the Oregon Attorney General obtained a stipulated judgment under which Kline, an associate, and the Center must pay $15,000 in costs, make refunds available, and notify customers that electrodermal testing has not been approved to assess the above-mentioned problems [4].
    19. Daniel J. Sonkin, "PhD," who practices marriage and family therapy in Sausalito, California.
    20. Gordon S. Tessler, "PhD,"author of The Genesis Diet, who practices "clinical nutrition" in North Carolina and represents himself as a "nationally recognized consultant in the fields of clinical nutrition and Biblical health." His Web site states that he charges $300 for a two-hour consultation using the Phazx BodyScan test that "provides an accurate, non-invasive testing procedure using head, wrist, and ankle electrodes to determine functional imbalances in the body."
    21. Columbia Commonwealth University, a nonaccedited school in Jackson, Wyoming, lists 21 faculty members (out of 74) with a PhD from CPU.
    22. Sincerely,

      District Overbeer

  • clash_city_rockers


    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. They will make assertions and not really think through thier conclusions most athiest on this board are grosely inconsistant and selfrefuting. 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.

    Wish you well,


  • hillary_step
    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. They will make assertions and not really think through thier conclusions most athiest on this board are grosely inconsistant and selfrefuting. 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.

    With friends who spell like this Jerry, who needs

    I have seldom read a more bigoted, facile and semi-educated paragraph on this board in many a month. A verbal hernia if ever I read one. Brutal assertions without evidence will not draw sympathy to any cause.

    If Mr. Bergman insists on drawing a target on his back and then sends detailed instructions ( by way of foolish statements such as "this kind of behavior is one reason why I moved from an atheistic world view to a Christian one" ) on how to hit the target squarely, he must realize that this has little to do with the debate between creationism or evolution but more to do with agendas of bruised ego. Frankly I am disappointed in him., but I am sure that he feels heartened by your


  • Share this