Dartagnan fairly frequenlty has very negative things to say about Dr. Gee.
And rightly so.
I have provided an entire thread that demonstrates why John Gee cannot be trusted in his apologetics. You avoid it like the plague because you cannot refute anything I said. So you have to veer off with this straw man thread. The respondents here are correct. Nobody has questioned Gee's ability in his respective field of expertise. It is when he starts with his apologetic theories that prove him a deceptive person.
Nobody has said that Gee isn't a respected scholar in his field.
Actually, if anyone has said anything like this... Robert Ritner came very close to saying something like this. He noted that Gee shows up at every conference he can, desperately trying to increase his visibility in the community. But he said this kind of thing doesn't always translate to an increase in respectability, and Ritner's refutations of Gee's work will probably guarantee Gee's status in the academic community will always be within the confines of talented amateur and apologetic hack.
Dartagnan's flaming rants against me, Peterson, Gee and others are probably, without equivocation, the best evidence available of the insecurity that lies at the root of his anti-Mormon tree.
Yea, my anti-Mormon tree!!
Anyone who knows anything about me knows that no such tree exists. My history online for the past decade has been overwhelmingly acting as an apologist. So suddenly when i let reason take over confirmation bias and allow myself to be dissuaded from my presuppositions, immediately I have to be called anti-Mormon and an entire history about my anti-Mormonism must be invented.
Again, its idiots like these that make my absence from the FAIR scene tolerable.
Dartagnan, at least at some level, knows very well that, with the Book of Abraham, for example, he is dealing with a combination of facts, hypothesis, conjecture, and wishful thinking that apologists do, in fact, have plausible and logical answers to.
You're still beating this drum, even after your recent botched attempt to provide examples of "plausible/logical answers"? Your problem is that you do not know what plausible means. Plausible means believable, and for apologists, any possibility is immediately accepted as a valid plausibility. Only those who believe out of necessity find them to be plausible.
Why don't you and charity explain for us why it is OK for Gee and Nibley to play color games with the audience? Why did Gee publish an argument based on color photos that were manipulated with different hues?
If Brent Metcalfe had ever done such a thing you would be yapping over and over how this proves he is deceptive and cannot be trusted. I simply employed teh same logic I learned as an apologist and discovered that the LDS scholars/apologists were often just as deceptive as some of the critics, and more so than others. And when this is shown, you start whining about ad hominem and throw up their resumes as if this somehow changes their deception.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein