Evidence for the Bible is everywhere, including outer space. We just have to be willing to look for it in a credible manner that brings glory to God. He does not lie, and the presence of water in Space shows us that God does not lie about biblical events. We know God did it because he told us he did it, and the evidence comes to shore up Christian faith when the time is right. As Christians, we do not need physical evidence. We just need to believe God because he does not lie.
And this is why having a discussion or debate with an Evangelical Christian is usually a waste of time. Discuss and debate if you must, but you won’t win. Why? When shown their beliefs and practices are false, what do Evangelicals do? Do they admit they are wrong? Do they admit you are right? Do they deconvert? Do they admit to having serious questions and doubts about their faith? Of course not, silly boy. When cornered, Evangelicals run to the safety of the house of faith and the inerrancy/infallibility of the Bible. Within the house of faith, all is ordered and well, and the Bible is true. Everything is right in this house. Of course, toking marijuana gives the same result — in my professional opinion. 🙂 It is only when Evangelicals venture outside the house of faith that change is possible. For it is in the world that they will find their beliefs and practices questioned, challenged, and overcome. Over the years, many devout Evangelicals and IFB Christians have stumbled upon this site, only to crawl away beaten and bruised, with more questions than answers.
Is my goal to evangelize for atheism? Nope. I don’t do it — ever. I am just one man with a story to tell. If my writing troubles someone or causes them to question or doubt, that’s on them. If they contact me, I will help them any way I can. I’m content to answer sincere questions and suggest books for people to read. Whatever they do with what they learn is up to them. Do some of them deconvert or move on to what I call “kinder, gentler Christianity?” You bet, and I am glad they did. Some sects of Christianity are more harmful than others. Evangelicalism, the IFB church movement, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Catholicism come to mind. These sects might be “right” about religion, but they sure cause a lot of harm, both physically and psychologically.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, is a Fundamentalist Christian blogger who has spent the past few years using my writing without credit or attribution for what he calls “teachings.” He takes a similar approach with my friend Ben Berwick. Thiessen has written more posts about the two of us that I can count. Sometimes, I just ignore the man. He’s little more than a gnat flying around my head on a warm summer day. These days, I selectively ignore Thiessen, choosing to only respond to posts I consider so egregious that they demand a response or are personal attacks on my character, family, or the readers of this blog.
Twice this week, Thiessen has demanded that both Ben and me apologize to him, for what I am not sure. I assume he’s demanding an apology because we dared to challenge his assertions about science. Thiessen sees himself as a defender of young earth creationism, a Bible literalist who will resolutely defend all sorts of nonsense because it appears in the Bible or is a personal belief of his. No amount of argumentation will change his mind. (And his defense of clerics who commit sex crimes is beyond disgusting.)
Thiessen claims to have a doctorate, including four science degrees — a claim he recently made for the first time. Geoff, a long-time reader of this blog, had this to say about Thiessen’s education claims and his understanding of science:
I don’t really care what educational achievements Tee claims, the proof of the pudding is in the eating or, in Tee’s case, the writing. There’s almost not a single sentence he writes that I can’t take issue with. Grammatically he’s dreadful, a clear indicator of his lack of proper education. Writing style not withstanding, his reasoning is impossible to understand by anyone with the slightest grasp of logic. He just doesn’t understand the scientific method. He seems to think it’s some isolated part of human existence, standing on its own, when in reality it’s the foundation on which everything we know about the world is based. Science essentially is observation and testing, reaching provisional conclusions, and incorporating them as needs be. Science and the scientific method is actually the only way we have of determining reality.
How is exploring the natural physical world going to provide the correct answers to our origins if science is not looking in the right direction or looking in the correct places? Providing the best explanation is not sufficient enough as the best explanation is not the truth.
The best explanation is the lazy man’s way to avoid the problems that arise with scientific research, when that research leads them away from natural solutions and into the supernatural. The scientists are too lazy and dishonest to say that the supernatural method is the only method possible.
Hence, God did it is the correct answer when science has no solutions. Here are some examples of science/evolution cannot answer why something exists.
…
How can anyone trust science when it fails to provide the answers to these and a myriad of other mysteries? It is not lazy to say God did it because that is the answer to all the mysteries science cannot answer.
Science is incapable of digging for and finding the truth because it does not want the truth. it wants something that misleads, misinforms, and hides the truth. In other words, they want something they and their biases can live with, and that is not science, nor is it objective.
True science would recognize the weakness of the natural-driven science and recognize God as the creator, as there is no alternative answer. It would also recognize God’s creativity, power, and glory in all of these and other examples science cannot find a natural solution.
It is just idiotic to dismiss the phrase ‘God did it’ because science cannot accept the supernatural. That dismissal is arrogance and ignorance on display at the same time. It is also a demonstration that science is incapable of studying the past as well as deriving the correct answer.
Saying science is the only way to get to the answers is showing a great bias against reality and the truth. Science is no longer objective but a tool to promote one bias or preconceived conclusion over the truth.
Instead of providing the correct answer, science becomes a place for unbelievers to hide from both reality and the truth. No one can trust a research field that takes great pains and many steps to avoid coming to the right answer.
When one expounds the truth, God did it, they are not being lazy, but illuminating the correct answer for everyone so that they are not misled by the lies that come from the deceived and blind secular world.\Yes, God did it all and science is a tool used by evil to lead people away from God and giving him the proper credit and glory.
Only a fool would say or repeat the words in the title in the exact same sentence structure. God created everything supernaturally and without the aid of science. Science is in over its head and outside of its scope when it investigates origins.
The Bible has the correct answer every time.
This is a good summary of the way Thiessen thinks about science.
Thiessen confuses “science research” with “science.” They are not one and the same. Further, Thiessen might want to study what Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder’s critics think of her work.
This brings me to Thiessen’s demand that I apologize. After posting Hossenfelder’s video, Thiessen wrote:
With the above video, we expect a very honest, public, humble, and personal apology for the attacks and off-the-wall comments from both MM & BG.
We know what we are talking about; they do not.
I still haven’t stopped laughing about Thiessen’s demand. There’s nothing I’ve said that deserves an apology. Thiessen is butthurt over our coverage of his bogus “four science degrees” claim. Until Thiessen actually provides evidence for his degrees, there’s no reason for anyone to believe he has them. All we know for sure is that Thiessen attended an unaccredited Bible college in Canada as a young man. And we didn’t even know that until I outed him. Thiessen claims “God knows, and that’s all that matters.” This is a common ploy of Thiessen’s. Don’t want to answer a question? Deflect or make some sort of God claim. End of discussion.
MM [Meerkat Musings] continues to make false accusations against us [me], so we [I] are [am] ignoring his latest response. Yet, neither he nor BG [Bruce Gerencser] has [have] apologized for their false accusations and their lies about us [me]. They like to make things personal, which we [I] do not, thus they have no credibility or an honest character.
We [I] have proven our [my] point quite well and guess what. We [I] opened up YouTube a few minutes ago and at the top of the suggestion list was the following video:
….
We [I] do not make fraudulent or misleading statements about anything. As you may have noticed, we [I] use legitimate websites and books to support our [my] points, so our [my] readers know they are getting accurate information.
That video is 20 minutes long, and it is well worth listening to as it provides not only information to defend one’s views on science but also provides eye-opening information on what is going on behind the scenes in science.
Maybe MM [Meerkat Musings] is upset as his rose colored view of science is destroyed, and it is not as glorious as he thought it was. Do not be fooled. Christians cannot trust scientists, and they do need to be fact-checked, etc., to get to the truth.
The Bible warns Christians about unbelievers and what they say. Those warnings include scientists and science, whether done by unbelievers or believers. We [I] are [am] not saying Christian scientists are all pure and do not commit fraud.
Those ‘Christian’ scientists who accept and promote evolution cannot be listened to either.
So once again, we [I] are [am] expecting a public, honest, humble, and sincere public apology from both BG [Bruce Gerencser] and MM [Meerkat Musings] because they are falsely accusing us [me] and have done nothing but lie about us [me] through their personal attacks.
Make sure to listen to the entire video to get all the right information on science.
Once again, Thiessen demands an apology from me.
Thiessen believes that Hossenfelder’s eighteen-minute video PROVES that Ben and I are lying about him and his science prowess. This claim has no merit. Besides, does Thiessen really believe that an eighteen-minute video by a controversial theoretical physicist justifies his criticisms of modern science? As I mentioned above, Thiessen confuses “science research” with “science” itself. He stupidly thinks that because a small minority of researchers lie or manipulate data that science itself can be disregarded anytime it disagrees with young-earth creationism and his wooden, literalist interpretations of the Bible.
Speaking only for myself, no apology will be forthcoming. I stand by every word I have written about Thiessen and his errant views of science and the Bible. I do kinda, a little bit, — I mean a teeny, tiny microscopic bit, regret saying a few years ago that Thiessen wants a picture of me naked to hang on his bedroom ceiling, but outside of that bit of risque humor, I stand by what I have written about him.
And Derrick? The offer of a picture still stands, but my nude photos are no longer available. 🙂
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, whose real name is Derrick Thomas Thiessen, recently wrote:
Unbelievers are very short-sighted when it comes to the topic of science. They think that science is the authority that provides all the answers, or will do so with enough research.
….
But we and most Christians know better. Just a little research shows how bad science and scientists can be. Of course, unbelievers only give lip service to the destructive and harmful inventions that science, in general, has discovered and developed over the millennia.
….
We cannot forget that ‘science’ brought the world Covid. The ironic aspect of this disease was that the inventor, science, could not create an antidote. The so-called vaccines were worse than the disease and never could stop the disease or reinfection.
….
There is good reason for that. Scientists are not immune to sin, deceit, and are not omnipresent or omniscient. They are fallible human beings who have limited knowledge, and most of them are under the influence of evil.
….
What unbelievers want believers to do is not what they will do. But that is a side point. The real issue is the so-called blind trust in science, even though much of scientific research is unethical or does not follow any rules of morality.
….
Other examples is where ‘science’ developed heroin as cough medicine, radium for use in everyday items like toothpaste, forever chemicals which is a problem that has not been solved, thalidomide given to pregnant women to ease morning sickness, and even asbestos which took decades to clear up and even then it is not a job that has been completed (Ibid).
All of these examples and many more provide legitimate reasons to question and distrust science. No one knows the motivations behind the scientists’ work or why they included certain ingredients in medicines and everyday use items.
No one should be trusting scientists given their track. The original article [written by my friend Ben Berwick] we quoted provides another example of why believers should not trust scientists or even consider the words of unbelievers. They dismiss the experience, education, and other qualifications of believers simply because they hold to the religious views they disagree with.
….
Rather, it is the reverse, as Christian believers have God helping them get to the truth. Unbelieving scientists do not want the truth; they want a natural answer, and that is their fatal flaw.
They are not looking for the right answer but one they can accept and live with. Unfortunately, too many scientists claiming to be Christian follow that ideology over what God has said in the Bible.
God has not said we cannot do science, but if we do participate in any form of that research field, Christians must follow God’s instructions over their unbelieving secular counterparts. We are not to lie, be unethical, but do science according to his will and for God’s glory.
That means we remove any element of sin in the process so that God can bring Christian scientists to the truth and the solutions. We do not follow the blind and deceived, for that takes us away from God and the truth, as well as solutions for the problems of this world.
No, we do not trust science as science is not an authority on anything, and that research field and its participants are not greater than God. God has the answers and the power to solve life’s problems. We do not put our trust in those who are mere humans who do not have the answer or the power to do the same thing.
— end of quote —
Thiessen says he has four science degrees, yet he refuses to name the the colleges he attended or how and where he “earned” his doctorate:
We find those quoted statements hypocritical because the author of those words does not believe one word we say, even though we have 4 scientific degrees behind our names.
Does anyone really believe Thiessen has four science (not scientific) degrees behind his name? When pressed on where he studied and got his degrees, Thiessen says “God knows and that’s all that matters.” This allows him to present himself as some sort of expert, when, in fact, he is anything but. Thiessen knows that if he ever posts his CV, it will likely reveal that he is a fraud or his “degrees” came from unaccredited institutions or diploma mills. Scientist, he is not.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
More stunning images of deep space have been released, once again highlighting the vast and awe-inspiring reality of the universe—one that stands in stark contrast to the ancient cosmology described in the Book of Genesis.
According to that account, the universe was a small, flat Earth covered by a solid dome, fixed and immobile at the centre of creation. The sun, moon, and stars were imagined as small lights affixed to the underside of this dome. Surrounding it all, above and below, were the primordial waters—and somewhere within or beyond this structure lay a magical, supernatural realm inhabited by divine beings bearing a striking resemblance to capricious, tribal warlords, and winged men (Genesis 1:1–18).
And, according to the Bible narrative, it has only existed for 6-10,000 years!
Since the invention of the telescope, and as our instruments have grown ever more sophisticated, our understanding of the universe has revealed a reality far removed from the one imagined by the authors of Genesis. The cosmos is not only vastly older than they could have conceived, but also incomprehensibly immense. Earth itself is far larger and older than they believed, a spherical planet orbiting the Sun—which is just one of perhaps half a trillion stars in our own galaxy. And that galaxy is, in turn, just one among perhaps a trillion others. Altogether, this vast universe is nearly 14 billion years old.
The most recent images are from the James Webb Space Telescope, of a region of deep space, between twelve billion and one billion lightyears away, so showing how the universe has evolved since it was about one billion years old – younger than Earth is now.
Rubicondor presents facts, facts that only a young earth creationist would disagree with. As I was reading the aforementioned post, it dawned on me that there’s an easy test we can use to show the ignorance of the men who wrote the Bible. Are you ready?
The universe according to the Bible, as interpreted by young earth creationists.
The universe according to modern science, as revealed by the Jame Hubble Space Telescope.
You may view other photos from the James Web telescope here.
Maybe the real ignorance here is the ignorance of young earth creationists who treat the Bible as a science textbook.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Troy Lacey, a writer for Answers in Genesis, recently wrote an article titled Answering Atheists. Lame from start to finish, Lacey tries to deconstruct quotes from Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Richard Dawkins. (These men, by the way, are not top-shelf atheists. Lacey might want to engage atheists who are schooled in Christian theology and dogma.)
With the Bible as our starting point, we can look at the natural laws that God created, such as laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis, and we can examine whether natural selection and mutation could possibly account for molecules-to-man evolution. They can’t. Instead, they clearly show the Creator (Romans 1:18–20).
Far from refusing to look at any evidence, creationists carefully examine it all. Creationist articles, books, and museums regularly cite the specific evolutionary arguments and then test them using the most rigorous scientific and philosophical tools available. We desperately want to know the truth so we can speak accurately about the Creator and his handiwork. We have no fears where the evidence will lead because we know it all points to God’s glory.
Oh, the lies young earth creationists tell. Do creationists really “carefully examine it [evidence] all?” Do they “desperately want to know the truth?” Of course not. Most young earth creationists are presuppositionalists. Creationists don’t start with evidence, they start with the following presuppositions:
The Protestant Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God
The one True God is the triune God of the Bible
God created the earth in six literal twenty-four-hour days, 6,028 years ago
God destroyed the human race, save eight people, with a worldwide flood
I could add more Evangelical presuppositions, but these will suffice for now. Instead of weighing the evidence for these claims, they presuppose that they are true. Granted, none of us is free of presuppositions, We should do everything we can to limit our presuppositions. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have presuppositions upon presuppositions. These presuppositions keep them from seeing, knowing, and understanding the truth. And it is for this reason that it is nearly impossible to argue/debate Evangelical apologists. Presuppositions are faith claims that are impervious to falsification. Either you believe them to be true, or you don’t.
Lacey lives in a bubble where he genuinely believes that creationists are “using the most rigorous scientific and philosophical tools available.” He says that creationists do not “fear where the evidence will lead.” Why? Here comes another presupposition: we know it all [all evidence] points to God’s glory. Does all evidence point to God’s glory? Of course not. This is a faith claim.
Long before we can discuss “creationism,” we must first debate the claims Evangelicals make for the existence of God and the supernatural nature of the Bible. Lacey wants atheists to take his word for these claims. Not going to happen. Most atheists are rationalists and skeptics. We expect Evangelical apologists to provide some sort of evidence for their claims. Lacey claims Evangelicals like him examine and test every claim made by scientists. Is this a true claim? If yes, then why are so few creationist scientists published in scientific journals; not creationist or Evangelical journals, but well-respected science journals? Cue claims of persecution or bias. That’s how Evangelicals explain their overwhelming lack of publication in non-sectarian science journals. “The evil evolutionists are out to get us,” Evangelicals claim. However, the more likely explanation is that their claims lack scientific standing, and no reputable journal is going to give space for nonsense to be published.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
Dr. David Tee, World Renowned Denier of Science, Observations, October 24, 2024.
On the back of the book (Stephen Hawkings — The Origin of Everything), and we are quoting from memory, the book said that scientists have finally got to the point where they understand and know where are origins began. Or something close to that.
As we read those few lines, the first thought was, what a waste of time. The secular scientists still have no clue about our origins because they omit the truth concerning that topic. They have yet to verify that our origins were by natural means.
They come up with different theories but not one of those theories puts the biblical supernatural creative act in jeopardy. The second thought we had and another reason we consider the book and the secular scientific work a waste of time is that God already explained our origins.
The scientists exploring and pursuing an alternative to the Biblical creation act simply wasted their intelligence, time, and money. They have spent years and valuable resources pursuing a topic that has already been answered
That is a waste considering the millions of people who could have benefitted from a wiser use of those three elements. But is the secular world for you. They would rather waste precious time, money, and intelligence pursuing a false idea than humble themselves and accept the truth.
….
As we have said for years, unbelievers always take the wrong paths, in the wrong directions and look in the wrong places for the wrong answers. They never learn or refuse to learn when the truth is presented to them.
Unbelieving scientists need our prayers so that the truth is revealed to them and their eyes are opened once and for all. Those prayers need to include all those Christian scientists and students who listen to the unbelievers and follow their counsel and not God’s
….
Throughout the world Christians can see the difference between the unbelieving world and the believing world. When they do recognize this difference, they will understand why God said to not follow or listen to unbelievers.
Unbelievers do not have the truth and many do not want it. We have read on many occasions where unbelieving scientists say that even if the Bible is proven true, they would not accept it. That is a sad state to be in and shows Christians we still have a lot of work left to do.
The unbelieving world uses its immoral standards and self-righteous attitudes to attack Christians, not realizing how bad off they are. They are merely pawns being used to harm unwary Christians
….
The right information does not come from unbelievers.
It comes from God and the Bible. Learn the truth and teach your children the truth before they come under attack from unbelieving teachers and professors. Giving them the right information is protecting your children.
Thiessen is not a scientist, and, as far as I know, has no science training apart from what he was taught in Bible college. He is no more qualified to opine on evolution than I am physics. That’s not to say that Thiessen doesn’t know anything about science. He knows enough to make it seem to uneducated Evangelicals that he is some sort of authority figure. This is common in Evangelical churches where preachers are viewed as authority figures in areas in which they have no relevant expertise.
What follows are excerpts from Thiessen’s latest posts. Laugh, ridicule, or weep, but never forget that scores of people agree with Thiessen, even if they might disagree with his ham-fisted approach.
There is only one single view that all Christians must accept and hold to. That view is the creation act revealed in Genesis 1. Every other viewpoint that alters or disagrees with this one biblical revelation is false teaching.
….
Evolutionary scientists make a lot of assumptions. The reason for this is . . . they cannot replicate claims made about ‘historical evolution’. It is an impossibility as they have no way of developing partial samples to experiment with.
This failure is another piece of evidence showing that evolution is not true. We do not have to worry about scientifically replicating any results of god’s creative act as it is done on an hourly basis every day.
….
No, other approaches do make scientific sense if science would be more open-minded about our origins. Science cannot study the one-time act nor replicate it. But it can prove that all life goes as stated in Genesis 1. That means God’s creative act makes scientific sense.
….
The truth never changes which is why Christian colleges, etc., need to stand with God and the Bible. Neither has changed over the thousands of years this world has existed. Evolution is whatever the evolutionist wants it to be no matter who it hurts.
….
There is no scientific evidence for any alternative to Genesis 1. All scientific evidence for those alternatives is manipulated to show support and read into any experiment they make. Plus, science has not discovered or tested one mechanism they say is involved in evolutionary human development.
….
To many unbelievers and unbelieving scientists, scientific media outlets and organizations evolution is dogma and settled science, not a theory. Evolution should never be taught in any school except to show why it is wrong and never existed. It is a theory that should never be considered for anything else.
….
It [the Bible] also tells us how God created. There is no room for any other theory to explain our origins. We know everything about our origins as the Bible reveals this creative act correctly. The opinion of Mr. Wright is one that is used to justify denying what God wrote about himself and says that God is incapable of writing about himself and his actions.
….
Any form of evolution is not true, it is not honorable, especially towards God, and it is not right or pure. Plus, evolution is not lovely or commendable as it caused great harm to millions throughout history and today, and it is not in any way shape, or form excellent or worthy of praise.
Evolution is nothing but a deceptive lie that has no place in any part of Christianity or its academic institutions. One cannot take science over God as the former is not the ultimate authority over anything.
Science, like many tools, is used to destroy people and Christians need to be aware of it before jumping on board scientific research. Christians can not teach other Christians to accept science over God’s word. If they do, they are leading those students to sin against God. That is very wrong.
If you don’t teach creation [ism] as true, then why teach the Bible at all? Or another good question why claim you are a Christian if you think the Bible is in error?
….
Good exegesis does require that everyone accept God’s word and does not hint at him being a liar. There is no evidence in scripture or nature that a process was involved in the origin of everything.
….
The very first biblical verse [Genesis 1:1] does not imply a process. Neither do the words ‘Let there be’ Every step of the creative act supports a supernatural creative act leaving no room for processes.
….
First, there is no evidence supporting evolution. To get evidence, scientists would have to produce the original conditions and let life take its course. With no intelligent being involved in the origination or development of life, scientists cannot be a part of any evolutionary experiment.
Then their ‘experimental’ set-up would have to produce the same results as scientists claim took place in their version of human history. If millions of years are needed for this production of verifiable evidence, then evolution is not true. One does not have evidence to support their extraordinary claims.
….
While the information about the fossilization of life forms is true, evolutionists will ignore this fact and claim the fossil record supports evolution. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, everything about evolution is read into fossils not taken out of it.
Fossils do not support an evolutionary process. They are pawns in a high-stakes game that evil uses to deceive people.
….
If Christian colleges are not pursuing truth but academic freedom, then the truth is lost and Christians are not getting the right spiritual food to grow strong and maintain their faith. You get what we have today, false teachers teaching false doctrine to vulnerable people. That is not a recipe for success.
After browsing the science books placed on the tables [at a book fair], we came to the conclusion that we do not need to read unbelieving science books anymore.
There are good reasons for following that realization. First, all the authors are telling the same story. They all do not depart from the main evolutionary claims or themes. Thus, they are boring to read. We figure they are writing these works to avoid the perish part of the academic publish-or-perish mentality.
Second, they offer no new evidence especially any that would be considered groundbreaking or history-changing. No new ‘physical evidence’ has been discovered or reported from the evolutionary side of the creation debate.
Anything they would present would be preceded or followed by the words ‘We Think’, ‘We Believe’. ‘it is possible’, ‘we do not know’, and similar phrases all evolutionary scientists cover their theories with. The last one is the most telling as it openly tells everyone they cannot find an alternative to God’s creative act.
Their evolutionary theories, etc., are merely wishful thinking and a waste of everyone’s time. Third, those first two points add up to the fact that it would be a giant waste of time reading those books.
They are nothing but false teaching and no Christian should be reading them unless they are looking for data and points to refute as well as show students why evolution and the Big Bang are wrong. These books provide no other type of valuable information.
Save your money or use it to buy solid, good Christian books written by true Christian scientists who believe in a 6 24-hour day creation. Remember, unbelievers do not have the truth and that includes all research fields under the science umbrella.
Every alternative to God’s creative act found in the Bible is false and untrue. Find Christian works that support Genesis 1 and 2 and learn the truth about our origins. Learn to strengthen your faith, not undermine it by accepting and adopting false information written by deceived people who are far from the truth.
Only God was there when creation took place and scientists cannot see back in time. It is laughable to think that evidence would survive billions and millions of years untouched by anything else.
— End excerpts
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
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.
Geoff Toscano, a long-time reader of this blog and a personal friend replied:
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.
Thiessen refuses to comment on this blog, choosing instead to “answer” comments on his site. Of course, Thiessen refuses to let people comment on his blog, nor does he have a contact page. You can, however, email Thiessen at kinship29@yahoo.com.
Titled Responding to Comments 4, Theissen “answered” five comments from this site. He had this to say to Geoff:
The person missing the point is the quoted commentator. Explanatory power means absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.
Also, explanatory power is not exclusive to evolution. Any alternative can have the same explanations credited to it. In fact, creation has the exact same explanatory power with one exception. Creation has all the evidence supporting it.
Like the late George Carlin, the commentator is judging God from only seeing humans and creation from the results of the fall and corruption that entered in at Adam’s sin. he did not and cannot see humans and creation as God created it.
God did a perfect job, but sin and corruption ruined what he did. The quoted commentator should blame evil not God. He also says that creatures adapt to different environments.
We have yet to see humans adapt to living underwater and fish to living out of water. Those are different environments. Moving to a different place on the dry surface of the Earth is not moving to a different environment.
It is simply moving to different weather patterns and temperatures. Nothing needs to change for adaptation to take place in that situation. Also, we have not seen one person adapt to the environment on the moon or in space. They still need protective gear to live.
This fact proves evolution false.
Geoff sent me a response to Thiessen that follows below. Geoff responds to Thiessen’s reply to him and several other commenters.
David Tee’s first comment makes no sense. I pointed out the explanatory power of evolution, and he countered with “There is nothing to support the ‘explanatory power’. If you remove the made-up evidence, then the explanation makes no sense.” He either didn’t read my comment properly or he didn’t understand it. Explanatory power IS the evidence so his reference to other evidence for evolution being made up is irrelevant. For example, the laryngeal nerve is explained perfectly by evolution, but makes no sense in his creation beliefs. That is the evidence, end of story.
As for his nonsense about humans adapting to living under water, he gets to be equally silly. Animals adapt to their environment, humans included. Life originated in the sea, then slowly started to move out of it onto dry land many millions of years, perhaps billions, of years ago. Animals that emerged evolved until they were able to live on the land without recourse to water. This explains why humans still have vestiges of gills (tail bones also, I might add). He’s also ridiculous in saying that different parts of dry land on Earth do not represent different environments. Really? Arctic versus the Sahara Desert? They aren’t just different weather patterns or temperatures, they require adaptation in a way almost as great as leaving the sea.
His point about not adapting to living in space or on the moon? (Ignoring that we’ve been able to access space for only a very few decades, whilst evolution requires thousands of years to make significant differences on the scale required). He really knows nothing about evolution. In fact, this comment is perhaps the most stupid I have ever seen from a creationist! It’s precisely because we haven’t adapted to such hostile conditions that we are unable to live in them! Should we be forced through circumstances one day to live on the moon then our bodies would adapt to the conditions, especially the gravity, but it’s unlikely we would ever be able to adapt to the lack of oxygen, which is essential for human existence, indeed all life (there are apparently tiny multi cells that exist without oxygen in parts of the ocean, but these aren’t relevant to Tee’s point). Plus, of course, we’d need water. There are technical ways of producing these but then we’d be adapting the environment to us. We can do this because we’ve evolved to be able to do it!
He says there are thousands of Christian biologists who reject evolution. False, there are almost none. Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute is the only seemingly qualified scientist who makes the claim and he’s not a biologist. Michael Behe, who really formalised Intelligent Design, has since retreated and I think has either reverted to accepting evolution or at least gone very quiet. The thing is there are always outliers. People who are anti-vaxxers, or moon landing deniers, flat earthers, and many others can appear to be carrying some kind of qualification to lend them credibility. Even so, they remain outliers. They aren’t taken seriously by the scientific community, not because the scientific community is conspiring against them, but because the scientific community exists only because it is historically the only method whereby humanity progresses. Science works (and I define science widely in this regard, to include all methods of reasoning), where faith does not. Faith recently murdered a small child in Australia, a child who had every right to depend on her parents and other guardians for protection, but who was betrayed because her protectors thought the power of God was greater than the power of medicine.
Tee claims that unbelievers seek to exclude God from their work. Ignoring the fact that a very large proportion of scientists are themselves religious believers (though it is a much lower proportion than that found in other areas of life) the fact is that science excludes nothing, not even God. The point is that good science leads where it leads. Isaac Newton was a great scientist, but he was also a fervent believer. When he constructed his theory of gravity it was hailed as, rightly, one of the great scientific achievements of all time. Even so, he knew there was a small error for which he couldn’t account, so he attributed this to God keeping ultimate control of his creation. He was wrong because he didn’t know, and at the time couldn’t possibly have known, of relativity, something Einstein demonstrated centuries later. So God figured in the thinking of one of the greatest scientists of all time, but unfortunately God proved not to be the answer. If God is ever the answer, then science will discover this, it won’t be through faith.
On top of this, many attempts have been made by science to ‘find God’. There have been four peer-reviewed studies that have attempted to establish whether prayer is of any benefit in assisting ill patients to recover. Three indicated it provided no benefit greater than chance, whilst one suggested there may even be negative benefit. Indeed, every aspect of supernatural claim has been carefully investigated by science. Miracle claims, so-called paranormal events, weeping statues, hauntings, exorcisms, NDEs, etc., all have been studied and no evidence of anything other than perfectly natural explanations has ever been found.
Matt Ridley’s main claim to fame is that he was chairman of the bank that initiated the financial collapse in the UK in 2007 (a full year before Lehman Brothers failed) and had to give evidence to a Parliamentary Committee that wanted to know where he was whilst all this happened. He admitted that he didn’t really involve himself, rather it was his name that was important to the bank (he is actually Sir Matt Ridley, and part of a wealthy landowning family). He’s written some good science books aimed at children, but he’s verging on denialism in much of what he writes. His religious beliefs, however, are irrelevant to his science writing.
It is easy to conclude that Tee is simply delusional (which he undoubtedly is) but it’s much more than that, and I think he has to be regarded as an outright liar. He keeps insisting that there’s no evidence for evolution. He’s simply wrong. Evolution is supported by more evidence than any other branch of science. It is now such a vast subject that it has to be subdivided for study purposes. No serious scientist in the world denies it, and certainly no biologists, whether religious believers or not. He insists the bible is true, in the face of all the evidence that proves it is not, other than in minor, trivial, ways. Most believers, and certainly most religions, have come to terms with the realisation that evolution is a stark fact.
Tee yet again demonstrates the impossibility of his ever having obtained a legitimate doctorate. I’ll go further and allege that he’s never passed any formal academic examination in his life. It’s significant that he chooses to limit his reply to the comfort of his website, protected from comments, and certainly not daring to risk direct interaction on Bruce’s forum.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
When most people describe volcanic eruptions, the type that is most often depicted is that of what geologists call a Vesuvian-type eruption, named after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE that destroyed the region of Pompeii. This type of eruption is also commonly called a Plinian-type eruption as it was described in great detail by Pliny the Younger in two letters to his uncle.
Pliny described a dark cloud rising rapidly upward from Mount Vesuvius and being lit up by flames and large flashes of lightning. He then described thick, hot cinders and ash raining back down near the mountain, while further away the ash spread out resulting in a lurid darkness spread over the region. Strong earthquakes were also described.
Pliny’s wonderfully complete description of this type of eruption earned him the honor of having all subsequent eruptions of this type bear his name. Some geologists prefer to name geologic events after a type location however, which is why some refer to this type as a Vesuvian eruption.
But was Pliny the first to fully describe such an eruption, or does a more ancient author deserve this honor? Science has a long history of memorializing the first, and yet in this instance, the first has been overlooked. The eruption of Mount Sinai in 1459 BCE, give or take a few years, was fully described by Moses. Therefore, this type of eruption should, by convention, be called a Mosaic- or Sinaian-type eruption.
Pliny’s description is considered to be a first because it contains certain criteria, all of which are also found in the description by Moses. These are:
1) a rapidly rising, hot cloud of ash and other volcanic material
2) lightning caused by static electric charges as the material is ejected upwards
3) flames or burning material known today as lava
4) thick darkness covering the surrounding region as the ash settles
5) strong earthquakes
“…the mountain burned with fire to the midst of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.” Deuteronomy 4:11
“…there were thundering and lightnings… Its smoking ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly.” Exodus 19:16,18
The necessary criteria appears to be only lacking a description of ash. However, the Hebrew word used here for darkness, is the same Hebrew word used to describe the plague of darkness that settled on Egypt just a couple of months before. That darkness was described as a “darkness which may even be felt” (Exodus 10:21) indicating the presence of particles in the air causing the darkness—in other words, ash.
One potential point of controversy in renaming this type of eruption after Sinai might be that the exact location of the mountain has been lost to history and is only known to be somewhere in Arabia’s rift region where such eruptions have been documented. Not knowing the exact location should not be a problem as scientific convention still honors the first description even when the type is lost. There are many examples in biology where the type specimen of a new specie has been lost.
Another argument for its rejection would be that acceptance of the historicity of this event is limited to the realm of believers in Judeo-Christian religions. However, outside of the Bible, the Quran also portrays this event as historical.
“We made the mountain tower high above them at their pledge…” An Nisa 4:154
“…when his Lord revealed Himself to the mountain, He made it crumble…” Al Araf 7:143
Not only does the Quran affirm the historicity of the account, but just like the Torah, it marvels at the ability of the Creator to manifest Himself within such awesome displays of power within His creation. Will the skeptics also one day marvel when the whole earth is bathed in a thick and gloomy volcanic darkness? A future day is described by two later authors who use the same Hebrew word for darkness that Moses used (Joel 2:2 and Zephaniah 1:15). In Revelation, John also describes a future plague of darkness that is painful (Revelation 16:10). Could these prophecies be hinting at a future time of significant volcanic activity? Maybe then fellow geologists will accept calling these Sinaian-type eruptions.
Bruce Gerencser, 68, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 47 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.
