I have looked into the matter, talking with Ergun and other principal parties at Liberty, and am convinced that the charges are libelous.
My first thought upon reading the statement was, "If Dr. Geisler has talked to Ergun Caner, and can conclude that directly contradictory statements such as "I was born in Istanbul" and "I was born in Stockholm" are merely "ambiguous" statements, then it is now morally incumbent upon Dr. Geisler, who did not need to involve himself in the matter, to answer the questions that Ergun Caner has so far refused to answer." If he possesses answers to all twenty two questions I posted earlier (click here), then a moral obligation is upon him to provide these answers to the rest of the world, in light of Dr. Caner's refusal to do so. He says he is "convinced" of his conclusions. Wonderful! Now he needs to convince the rest of us.
EXACTLY. Dr Geisler, we're all ears!
In the meantime, perhaps Peter Lumpkins can print this one off for Dr Geisler and have him read it since he seems to be functioning as Geisler's emissary here:
UPDATE: (5-24-2010 9:58 am CT)
Sigh. Well I tried to post a comment at Peter Lumpkins' site. I had referred to Lumpkins' saying Geisler has taught Logic. I said something like:
"Geisler has taught Logic? WHY?"
It hasn't been approved yet. Hm. Must be a glitch.