Over the years, we [I] have written more than enough articles proving that the theory of evolution is not true.
….
Evolution is what anyone decides it to be and then changes the physical evidence to fit their particular version.
….
The Bible has the theory of evolution beat no matter how you look at this issue.
Dr. David Tee, TheologyArcheology: A Site for the Glory of Scientific Ignorance, The Evolutionary Fairytale, July 11, 2024
Oh brother, I’ve wasted at least 5 minutes of my life reading Tee’s article! Just when I thought the fool couldn’t get any more stupid he proves me wrong, once again! The irony is that he accuses evolutionary scientists of creating fairy stories along the lines of Hansel and Gretel, when it’s actually a book of fairy tales that he seeks to defend.
He misses the most basic understanding of why evolution must be true, and that is its explanatory power. Take away all the evidence we have in terms of DNA, the fossil record, variation, adaptation, and so on, and still we have the explanatory power. Evolution provides an explanation of features we observe in every life form that special creation cannot begin to approach. It explains biodiversity, vestiges and atavisms, bad design (if god designed humans then he did a terrible job!), and especially the manner in which life forms seem strangely to conform to their varying environments. An educated person cannot deny evolution: they are mutually exclusive.
Well GeoffT I have to agree. If I were intelligently designed, I would have,…… oh well, never mind. Don’t bother trying to confront the likes of Tee with logical reasoning. Tee resists reason as Monty Python’s Black Knight resists surrender.
Even as he is rendered irrelevant with all his limbs severed, he won’t back down. Almost got to admire that huh? You can’t accuse him of giving up easily.
So it takes a single evangelical archeologist to discredit the theory of evolution? Why haven’t the planet’s thousands of biologists found out that they have been gravely mistaken this entire time? What’s that David? You mean they all have an agenda against the Bible? Every last one of them have conspired to suppress the Word of God? You really sure about that?
Mr Tee – puts fingers in ears and says “la la la la la” to drown out the voices of actual scientists.
It takes a lot of work to remain a young earth creationist. I know, because I was one for awhile when I was still in the fundamentalist world. It was ok to accept most science, but not ok to accept anything to do with evolution. Additionally, we YEC had to attribute those parts of science to a vast anti-God conspiracy to deceive the masses to promote atheism. Lots of putting one’s fingers in one’s ears to drown out segments of science.
Yep, I too was once a YEC until I got honest and realized that all the data points the opposite direction. Your post reminded me of something I once heard before: Ignorance is a choice in the age of information.
Thanks Jimmy, I’ll be re-using that even though I consider ignorance to be a disability deserving of compassion rather than a voluntary choice.
Well duhhhh. Yeah if the Bible was evidence, which it isn’t, it would beat objective verifiable evidence every time. It’s just not evidence of anything material and certainly not evidence of evolution, neither for nor against.
“Charlamagne Tha God” just came out with a book and the title made me think of people who adjust reality to fit their narrative. Let’s see. Who does that? Anyhow. that book title is “Get Honest or Die Lying”. Some will indeed die lying, even with their last breath.
Dr. Tee “responds” to your comments 🤣🤣
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2024/07/13/responding-to-comments-4/
That’s funny! Now if he’d just cite his sources and make us famous! ((Lol))
A portion of Tee’s response, “It is a proven and undisputed fact that unbelievers do not want God as part of their work.” Naturally, since God and science are two separate things. This is why creationism is considered pseudo science. Creationism places the ‘cart before the horse’ so to speak. It starts with conclusions and then dismisses anything that does not support those conclusions. That’s not the investigated method of science. Tee also remarks that I’m not “one of the smartest kids on the block.” I can’t argue that since I grew up in a school that taught young earth creationism.
I always get a little fascinated reading arguments about creation versus evolution. I am a Christian that believes in creation, but will be the first to tell you that I can in no way prove it, it takes faith. I was taught evolution in school and was taught the Bible later in my childhood/teen years. I will never try to say that I am familiar with all of the evolutionary teachings on how the universe came into existence, but what I’ve heard does not make sense to me. Creation may seem far fetched (no more far-fetched than the premidorial soup theory I was taught), but makes sense in my mind.
I kind of view it this way… Both beliefs are based in faith. I can’t prove anything was created, and the other side cannot prove that all of this around us came from nothing. It all goes back to the question of what was there in the beginning, and neither side can prove that regardless of what they say. I have faith that God exists and created what we see, but can’t prove it. The Biblical account means nothing to those that don’t believe the Bible. Evolutionists believe there was some kind of “bang” that started life, but can’t really prove it if they are honest. It’s just a question of where your faith resides.
No JT, evolutionary theory and creation are not equal. Evolution is not based on faith but on evidence, whereas creationism is based not just on faith, but wilful denial of the evidence supporting evolution. Creationism was a ‘knee jerk’ and spontaneous belief going back to the earliest days of sentience in mankind, and arose out of our innate desire to have answers to anything we don’t understand. Evolution is, to all intents and purposes, an established fact, whereas creationism has had to retreat constantly as evolution constantly undermines it. I pointed out to the ‘imminent’ (nobody commented on that quirky little adjective, Bruce) David Tee how evolution has an explanatory power that creationism cannot match. Think about it. Creationists do nothing but claim ‘how do you explain…’, then close their ears to the reply. It’s always in the negative; apart from ‘God did it in six days’, there is not a single positive claim by creationists.
Good morning, Geoff. I believe you may have missed the main point of what I was trying to get across. I realize that we have carbon dating and such to prove that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, and I agree that it is older. What I am saying is that no one can tell me how life began with any kind of empirical evidence… It’s not there and we can’t recreate it. The laws of science say that life cannot be created from non-living material… So, let’s assume for a moment that much of evolution is 100% correct. How did life begin? There is not proof of any answer that can be provided.
I have two engineering/technology degrees and am in my 50s. My job requires research and data to convince customers of solutions that my company provides. I only tell you that so you can realize I do not operate with science blinders on, and I respect true science, which is science based on true results with no bias. Too many scientists are looking for the “missing link” and twist what they find to match some theory they have. Just like when they “find” a fossil from a supposed half man-half ape creature… You read the details and find out all they really had was a tooth and a leg bone, they just fabricated the remaining structure… And yes that has happened because I’ve dug into it and read about it from accredited scientific journals.
Anyways, my main point is this. There is no empirical evidence of the beginning of life from creationists or evolutionists. I am willing to follow the science, but it has to make sense and be at least somewhat provable. Unfortunately, this is one thing that is not provable barring some miraculous discovery. Until then, I believe it’s all in where you put your faith.
Sorry JT, but I think you’ve got some really confused views. There is no such thing as ‘The Laws of Science’. It’s a phrase that’s usually conjured by science numpties, and I’m surprised to hear it used by someone with a scientific background. You say that life can’t be created from non life, but this is just an assertion and, if you think about it, must be untrue. Firstly, I’d point out that we do understand the basics of abiogenesis, the process whereby life emerged from non life. Don’t forget, either, that organic matter contains exactly the same minerals as non organic matter. Were there some special difference between the two then one would expect to see different and unique minerals in organic matter but they are identical. Admittedly we’ve never (yet) succeeded in producing life from non life in laboratory conditions, but we’ve gone a long way in producing the building blocks of amino acids, and it has to be remembered that it is difficult to replicate the conditions that existed all those billions of years ago.
Secondly, we know that life exists and we are entitled to assume that before it existed there was non life. So somehow life came about, even if it was created by God. If
God did it then he must have used a process that mimicked abiogenesis, so it happened whatever.
There is no ‘missing link’. Again, this is a term that was invented by creationists and is totally meaningless. There are countless thousands of fossils that represent intermediate forms between species, including humans, and there is no ‘twisting’, at least amongst legitimate evolutionary scientists. There have been a few frauds along the way, especially Piltdown Man but, guess what? It was science that exposed this because it didn’t fit with the known evidence and was subsequently found to have been fraudulent.
You make some good points and I’ll take them one at a time. I wouldn’t say that I have confused views as much as maybe uninformed, or even based on old information. With raising kids and now grandkids, my external reading level is not what I would like it to be.
As for the “Laws of Science”, you may very well be 100% correct. I would be lying if I said I remembered the instructor in my past that used that term as I haven’t had any kind of science class in over 30 years… Could have even been in high school and haven’t been there since 1990… Sigh.
Thanks for admitting that creating life hasn’t been duplicated in a lab and recreating the the original environment is highly unlikely, if not impossible. As far as the minerals and abiogenesis, I would expect that on either side of the creation/evolution argument. The Biblical account says that God created man from the dust of the earth, so it makes sense those minerals are present in our body as well as the earth.
I maintain that I am willing to follow the science, but it has to make sense and be at least somewhat provable. If you want to direct me to any information that may be worth my consideration, please feel free to do so.
Thanks for this very positive response JT. Often people dig in their heels and refuse to be receptive to new information (I’m frequently guilty myself!), but you clearly aren’t one of those!
As for pointing you to new information I would suggest watching Forrest Valkai on YouTube (he does host those usually awful talk in shows, where atheists take on believers but those are of little value) on the subject of abiogenesis especially. He’s a well qualified biologist, he knows his subject inside out, and he’s a very good communicator. I’d post a link but I don’t think this site allows it.
I will try to check that out over the weekend. You did write one more thing that I meant to comment on: “So somehow life came about, even if it was created by God”
So, life began somehow, but my larger point is this… Before life, what was there? If God didn’t create this, how does it exist? How did it come about? Even from my side, if God created everything, how did God come about? Genesis says “In the beginning God…” How did God get there? When was the beginning (I know more than 6000 years)?
These are the questions I can’t answer and I don’t believe science can either, my opinion of course.
Yes indeed, all very difficult questions to answer, but I’m pleased to see that you acknowledge that if we’re going to rationalise the universe into existence via a creator god then that creator faces similar logical challenges. In short, where did the creator come from?
Hi Geofft,
I did notice your use of the word ‘imminent’, but wasn’t sure if that was deliberate or a typo due to autocorrect. I must have missed the story behind why you used that word.
I suspect he meant eminent. (I misspelled the word in a previous post.) Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, is an Evangelical preacher located in the Philippines. He is a royal pain in the ass; a man who thinks highly of himself, even though he lacks proper scientific training. He refuses to say where he got his master’s degree and doctorate, leading me to surmise his “degrees” are either from Evangelical diploma mills or correspondence schools. He fashions himself as some sort of Biblical archeologist. He largely denies most of what science currently tells is about the world. Worse, he is a defender of preachers who commit sex crimes, going so far as to call sexual assault a “mistake.”
If you want to check out Thiessen further: https://brucegerencser.net/?s=dr+david+tee
You can find his blog here: https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/
Ah, now I see. Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. I will be sure to look up those links about this Mr. Thiessen character, even though I fully anticipate getting annoyed with his horse manure.
He is the kind of preacher who gives Evangelicals a bad name.
Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.