YEC David Tee

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:12 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I see he has now responded with HATRED because I exposed his bad behaviour.
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... /#comments



PS On 2 March.
A disagreement has broken out between Tee and the troll 'Mister Gordons' (who attacks me but then - rightly - criticises some of Tee's positions). I have posted the following - but of course you will ONLY be allowed to read it here (so Gordons as well as Tee should get to see it if he is observant enough):
"The Bible says nothing about speciation. However speciation is REAL (even the bigot Gordons recognises that). Mainstream YECs do however add fictitious things to what the Bible says eg 'massive undersea volcanism' during Noah's flood or a 'post-flood rapid ice age'."


Why are you bothering with David Tee? I've shown up to be what he is, an unqualified arrogant fraud.


Actually you haven't shown anything. You posted the information from the wrong person not me.

His own words betray how he is profoundly and rabidly anti-science.


Wrong again and I answered this comment. I am not anti-science but anti the lies secular science produces. At best secular science brainwashes not educates.
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:21 am

ProfessorTertius wrote:Tee claims nobody has pointed out "a single verse" that shows Young Earth Creationists are wrong. Yet I have shown him many times.


So the GLOBAL flood is a falsehood and isn't described in the Bible. It is TRADITION based on a misunderstanding of the word EARTH as used in 1611 when the KJV Bible was translated. They understood "earth" much like the ancient Hebrews did.



You still haven't and in regards to the global flood I believe it was Dr. Wilmington who pointed out that if the flood was local then God lied for there have been myriads of local floods throughout history and God promised not to send another flood after the Genesis one. We have had only 1 global flood thus God did not lie but kept his promise. The flood was global
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:26 am

ProfessorTertius wrote:By the way, when I visit David Tee's site I don't see any way that I can post a comment. Perhaps he has banned me from long ago. I can read the comments but no prompts appear.

One would think that YECs would want everyone to see how they can destroy all counter-arguments---but instead they almost always resort to censorship. Are they full conscious of their fears of evidence and argument against them? I think it depends on the individual. But I do think that many are privately aware of their inability to counter such arguments. That's got to be discouraging.

Of course, some assume that holding to an illogical position that lacks evidence shows their level of faith.


I will have to check when I get a chance but I do not recall banning you. It is not censorship, freedom of speech is limited when someone else owns the forum besides if we want to address your arguments we do not need to have you comment, we just need to copy and paste then address them.

Your OEC does not answer questions like when did death and corruption enter the earth? or if God created everything perfect how could it be perfect when it is going through a process to gain perfection? That process is influenced by death and corruption something not addressed in the OEC model (or evolutionary one either). You just have too many unanswered questions in your alternative theories and can provide no answers nor verifications for any answers you suggest.
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

YEC David Tee

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 14, 2017 5:55 pm

archaeologist55 wrote:
Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I see he has now responded with HATRED because I exposed his bad behaviour.
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... /#comments



PS On 2 March.
A disagreement has broken out between Tee and the troll 'Mister Gordons' (who attacks me but then - rightly - criticises some of Tee's positions). I have posted the following - but of course you will ONLY be allowed to read it here (so Gordons as well as Tee should get to see it if he is observant enough):
"The Bible says nothing about speciation. However speciation is REAL (even the bigot Gordons recognises that). Mainstream YECs do however add fictitious things to what the Bible says eg 'massive undersea volcanism' during Noah's flood or a 'post-flood rapid ice age'."


Why are you bothering with David Tee? I've shown up to be what he is, an unqualified arrogant fraud.


Actually you haven't shown anything. You posted the information from the wrong person not me.

His own words betray how he is profoundly and rabidly anti-science.


Wrong again and I answered this comment. I am not anti-science but anti the lies secular science produces. At best secular science brainwashes not educates.



I now see that on 4 March 2016 'Tee' attempted to dismiss most of my words below as 'garbage'. Wrong again.
"The Bible says nothing about speciation. However speciation is REAL (even the bigot Gordons recognises that). Mainstream YECs do however add fictitious things to what the Bible says eg ‘massive undersea volcanism’ during Noah’s flood or a ‘post-flood rapid ice age’."

Like I said on 31 January 2017, Tee is rabidly anti-science.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby ProfessorTertius » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:02 pm

I suppose I choose check out David Tee's page sometimes, since Ashley says I'm not banned any more.

Perhaps
We've had some heavier interaction/traffic at the Bible.and.Science.Forum Facebook page lately. Unfortunately, they rarely say much more than "You are wrong and I"m right" despite posting long posts.

I have tried to get YECs to discuss my analysis of non-random final digit distribution in the Genesis genealogies---but they seem to be incapable of anything but saying "the plain meaning is obvious." I can never get them to actually critique my simple assertions like "Not all cultures use LITERAL AGES for people" and "Methusaleh was not ACTUALLY 969 years old at death---but the culture assigned him that symbolic age." And when I point out that there are cultures which do similar things today, they ignore that.

However, when I mention these non-literal uses of years in ancient Mesopotomia, it is MISSIONARIES who often agree with me by saying, "Yeah, I saw a lot of that when I worked in Indonesia. When someone said, "I'm fifty years old", they actually meant "My grandson had a little girl so my great grandparent status means my age changed from 40 to 50." It is a generation indicator there.

I wish universities replaced language requirements with CULTURE REQUIREMENTS which would help people understand how not everybody thinks and reasons the same. Culture determines the "natural reading" of their texts.

Perhaps I should post this at BCSE for Tee.

In fact, here's a related post from the Bible.and.Science.Forum knowledge database that I'm using as a standard reply to inquirers:

Destroy Ussher's Chronology VERY EASILY

Here's an interesting puzzle for you:
Ignore for the moment the likelihood of 900+ year lifespans. Forget about Methuselah dying at 963 years old. Focus on this instead.

What's the most-concise way to demonstrate that the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs in the Genesis genealogies (Adam through Noah) were NOT meant to be read LITERALLY---and, therefore, were not meant to be used in calculating a 6,000 year old earth?

My answer:

The final digit of the thirty ages/numbers of the pre-flood patriarchs in Genesis are NOT randomly distributed as we would normally expect of real people.

Think about this:
(1) If one considers only the ten ages listed for the birth of the first son, the final digit is only in the set of {0,2,5,7}.
(2) If one only considers the ten "years remaining" spans from first son until death, the final digit is also restricted to the set of {0,2,5,7}.
(3) If one only considers the ten ages at death, the final digit is restricted to the set of {0,2,5,7,9}.

What are the chances of those three non-random distributions? I'll skip the mathematics--which most YECs will find some excuse for denying or obfuscating--but I think almost everyone's intuition tells them that the probability of such non-random distributions is extremely low!

Notice that we didn't have to touch the question of whether a human can possibly live over a 120 years or so.

Extra credit:

Why would the final digits fall into those restrictive sets? That's another puzzle for another time but here's some hints. Prior to 2000 BCE, the ancient Mesopotamians loved to use numbers symbolically. They also tended to use sexegismal numbers, a base-60 number system. Obviously, these hints remind us that when Young Earth Creationist read the Genesis genealogies "literally", they are actually ignoring the plain and natural meaning of the numbers in their ancient Mesopotamian cultural context.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

YEC David Tee

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 14, 2017 8:22 pm

I received an email reply from Prof Tertius, timed at 7.11 pm GMT. It included the following comments:
"I just went to https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... /#comments
and there are no reply buttons or any way for me to post. I can read everything but there are no appropriate buttons NOR a login feature----so I don't see how I could possibly comment.
So, I'd say that I'm still banned there."


PS at 8.28 pm. I think the answer is that that particular (old) thread has been closed by Tee and I can see no 'Leave a Reply' box. For me at least, this more recent thread now appears to be open once more (I have not attempted to make any further comment though):
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... /#comments
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:42 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I received an email reply from Prof Tertius, timed at 7.11 pm GMT. It included the following comments:
"I just went to https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... /#comments
and there are no reply buttons or any way for me to post. I can read everything but there are no appropriate buttons NOR a login feature----so I don't see how I could possibly comment.
So, I'd say that I'm still banned there."


PS at 8.28 pm. I think the answer is that that particular (old) thread has been closed by Tee and I can see no 'Leave a Reply' box. For me at least, this more recent thread now appears to be open once more (I have not attempted to make any further comment though):
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.c ... /#comments


I haven't closed any threads. some times the wordpress system stops replies after so many have been made.
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:51 am

I have tried to get YECs to discuss my analysis of non-random final digit distribution in the Genesis genealogies---but they seem to be incapable of anything but saying "the plain meaning is obvious." I can never get them to actually critique my simple assertions like "Not all cultures use LITERAL AGES for people" and "Methusaleh was not ACTUALLY 969 years old at death---but the culture assigned him that symbolic age." And when I point out that there are cultures which do similar things today, they ignore that.


Verifuction please. Since we have no historical record for that culture how do you know it was symbolic? What evidence do you have to support your theory? While some cultures MAY do that, their actions do not mean that ALL cultures did that.Culture is subjective and is not an indicator that when one society does something that another unrelated society does it. You have no connection for the pre-flood civilization that allows you to draw those conclusions.

What's the most-concise way to demonstrate that the ages of the antediluvian patriarchs in the Genesis genealogies (Adam through Noah) were NOT meant to be read LITERALLY---and, therefore, were not meant to be used in calculating a 6,000 year old earth?


Again you draw a conclusion when there is no evidence or direction to alter the literal reading of the pre-flood generations.

Think about this:
(1) If one considers only the ten ages listed for the birth of the first son, the final digit is only in the set of {0,2,5,7}.
(2) If one only considers the ten "years remaining" spans from first son until death, the final digit is also restricted to the set of {0,2,5,7}.
(3) If one only considers the ten ages at death, the final digit is restricted to the set of {0,2,5,7,9}.


Why would you do that? What clue or discovery led you to this type of thinking?

Why would the final digits fall into those restrictive sets? That's another puzzle for another time but here's some hints. Prior to 2000 BCE, the ancient Mesopotamians loved to use numbers symbolically. They also tended to use sexegismal numbers, a base-60 number system. Obviously, these hints remind us that when Young Earth Creationist read the Genesis genealogies "literally", they are actually ignoring the plain and natural meaning of the numbers in their ancient Mesopotamian cultural context.


You are applying a cultural context that did not exist at the time of the civilization you are applying it to. Doesn't work. If you are working under the premise that the OT writers copied the babylonians for their pre-flood account you would be off base as there is nothing in history that shows that the Israelites copied anyone or enjoyed such a reputation. Now the old Babalyonians did copy and did enjoy such a reputation (Mesopotamia & the Bible ed. by Chavalas and Younger) so the Israelites copying other nations theory is skewed and erroneous.
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:12 am

I don't care "who copied who" in terms of a contest of cultures. That wasn't my purpose. Most of us don't really care which culture first saw the significance of particular numbers, but it is entirely natural for cultures all over the world to do so. Explaining that process involves a lot of comparative anthropology study and an understanding of how counting systems develop. In the ANE the basis of symbolic numbers goes back to the natural advantages of the duodecimal system (base-12) and the sexigesimal system (base-60). We see the same facts at work among the Ancient Hebrews.

Most elementary school students learn about number systems and bases, as well the advantages of a base-12 over a decimal/base-10 system due to the convenience of maximizing whole divisors and prime factors. That's why so many cultures developed the DOZEN concept, recognizing that 12 objects (e.g., eggs) can be divided into convenient groups of 1,2,3,4,6, and 12. The 24 hour day reflects the 12 hours of A.M. and P.M. as well as the base-60 phenomena of 60 seconds and 60 minutes, as do the coordinate numbers of navigation. Geometry depends upon six sixties for 360 degrees. So it is not surprising that the ancient Mesopotamians liked to use 12's and 60's.

Some Christians seem to think that the ancient Hebrews ALWAYS MUST have been the first to invent or discover this or that---and they suspect that to deny that "first" somehow dishonors God and the Bible. But why? All humans are created in the Image of God and the human mind figures out all sorts of things. Moreover, the varied histories of the development of writings (and the varied histories of their PRESERVATION) in various cultures makes for an uneven comparative landscape. Cultural borrowing is both inevitable and natural. In any case, it is irrelevant to the hermeneutical issues to obsess over who preceded who--- and even if the Bible is studied in isolation from the neighboring cultures of the ANE, number symbolism is so obviously apparent throughout the Torah! Even most American evangelical children in their Sunday School classes learn the symbolic meanings of important numbers like 3, 7, 10, 12, 40, and 70. And who doesn't notice that the 12 tribes of Israel were echoed in the 12 disciples of Jesus Christ? I won't even try to list all of the different contexts in which 12 appears in the Book of Revelation, right down to the 12 stone foundations and 12 gates in the New Jerusalem. Of course, out of Israel will come the twelve 12,000, for 144,000 total. Symbolism abounds in the Bible, so I'm amazed that David Tee would deny any of it!

The basis of symbolic numbers goes back not only to the natural advantages of the duodecimal and sexigesimal number systems, but also their natural evolution from counting by hand. All humans have the same two hands with a thumb and four fingers on each. The ancients would use their thumb to point to one of the 12 finger bones of each hand (3 bones per finger) to count from 1 to 11 and then to use the five digits (notice that word's double meaning!) of the other hand to count to 60. (Alternatively, they could use the 12 bones system to count up to a dozen dozens!) So it is hardly surprising that we find these number systems among so many diverse peoples!

I'll not try to reduce countless dissertations into a few paragraphs. So I'll just jump ahead to the question of why just four or five digits of the ten possible appearing as the final digit in all of the 30 numbers of the Genesis genealogies. I'll reduce it to a few key numeric facts:

There are 12 months in a year.
There are 60 months in 5 years.
There are 5 digits on each hand.
There are 7 days in a week. (And even most Christians still consider 7 a "perfect number".)
Also, the ancient Mesopotamians emphasized that those two numbers made for important combinations: 5+7=12 and 5+7+7=19.

Taken all together, the above produces 5 special digits: 0,2,5,7,9.

There are 30 numbers in the Genesis genealogies. The final digit of each of those 30 numbers should be evenly distributed in the set of ten digits: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,} Yet they are not! Two of the sets of 10 numbers only end in {0,2,5,7} and the third set of 10 numbers end only in {0,2,5,7,9}. What are the changes of such a non-random distribution? About one in a billion!

Obviously, if the numbers in the genealogies were REAL LIFESPANS and AGES, we would expect them to be randomly distributed. But they aren't.

When I referred to "my analysis", I really should have written "my summary of the traditional analysis"---because this is not a discovery original to me. No, Ancient Near Eastern scholars have been observing and publishing the symbolism of ancient Mesopotamian numbers since long before any of us were born!

"Again you draw a conclusion when there is no evidence or direction to alter the literal reading of the pre-flood generations."

Are you sure you understand the nature of evidence? Do you deny that non-random distributions are evidence? Read the above. If you need citations, start Googling. This is all peer-review published information that's been appearing in the literature for well over a century now. Look it up. It is not my job to tutor.

"Why would you do that? What clue or discovery led you to this type of thinking?"

Seriously? You aren't following any of this???

" Now the old Babalyonians did copy and did enjoy such a reputation (Mesopotamia & the Bible ed. by Chavalas and Younger) so the Israelites copying other nations theory is skewed and erroneous."

If it makes you feel better to think that the Hebrews invented this and the Babylonians copied them, uhhhhh..... ok. Whatever. Who developed the symbolism first doesn't really matter. But I would think that you would notice that the antediluvian Patriarchs preceded Abraham and the Children of Israel. So it's a moot point.

Seriously, is all of this new to you?
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:20 am

archaeologist55 wrote:
ProfessorTertius wrote:if God created everything perfect ...


It is very difficult to discuss the scriptures with you when you lack even a basic knowledge of the Bible!

There is NOTHING in Genesis which states that the creation was "perfect". It says that God declared the creation VERY GOOD (very TOV.) It wasn't "perfect". What would that mean?

And by the way, was a garden with a deceiving snake in it "perfect"?

You also ask when death entered creation. It was there all along as part of God "very good" plan. What's another name for death? It's called FOOD! Adam and Eve could not eat without the death of living organic tissues! Other than salt added to flavor their salad and water added to thin out the soup, EVERY MEAL INVOLVED DEAD THINGS!

That's the problem when you allow man-made TRADITIONS to replace what the Bible actually states.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:35 am

archaeologist55 wrote:You still haven't and in regards to the global flood I believe it was Dr. Wilmington who pointed out that if the flood was local then God lied for there have been myriads of local floods throughout history and God promised not to send another flood after the Genesis one. We have had only 1 global flood thus God did not lie but kept his promise. The flood was global


Face-palm. It sounds like Wilmington doesn't know the Bible any better than you do.

The Noahic Flood wasn't merely local. It was a regional flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights and covered the land with water FOR OVER A YEAR. Tell me, David Tee, how many local floods do you and Dr. Wilmington know of which can be described in that way? Sheesh. You two are amazing. You are also laughably illogical. (By the way, I really don't care what some "Dr. Wilmington" says, especially when he has such a poor grasp of the scriptures. Arguments from Authority aren't helping your cause.)

archaeologist55 wrote: We have had only 1 global flood thus God did not lie but kept his promise. The flood was global


Yes, the Bible says the one and only "global flood" (your term, not mine) was in Genesis 1 before God separated the land and the waters. Before that, water covered ALL OF THE LAND. There was no land to be seen anywhere. And the Psalmist said (in the famous Creation Psalm, Psalm 104) that after God separated the land and the waters, GOD PROMISED TO NEVER FLOOD ALL OF THE LAND AGAIN. So it is YOU AND DR.WILMINGTON who are claiming that God lied! You are telling me that God broke his promise and flooded all the land A SECOND TIME!

No. I prefer what the Bible says over and and above your favorite man-made traditions. The Bible says that God promised that the waters covering all of the land in Genesis 1 would NEVER be repeated. (See Psalm 104:9 for God's promise.) So even though you call God a liar all that you wish, I'm not listening to you. You are a blasphemer who doesn't even take the time to become familiar with the Bible.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:40 am

As to "archaeologist55", I don't think anybody here thinks that David Tee is an archaeologist.

I also don't think anybody here needs for me to explain why.

Enough said.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby ProfessorTertius » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:56 am

archaeologist55 wrote: I am not anti-science but...


Notice how Young Earth Creationists are constantly telling us how they aren't anti-science? I wonder why? Most of us never have to explain that we "aren't anti-science". Never.

archaeologist55 wrote: ....but anti the lies secular science produces.


NEWSFLASH: There is no such thing as "secular science." It is just "science". And because science is not theology and the scientific method has no tools or procedures for making theological claims, science can NEVER be "secular science" or "non-secular science" or "Protestant science" or "Catholic science". It's just science!

Of course, if David Tee was ACTUALLY an archaeologist, I wouldn't have to explain the meaning of science to him.

I see it again and again: Young Earth Creationists know even less about science than they do about the Hebrew scriptures.

My work is done here. I had hoped I could find a Young Earth Creationist who could provide a competent exchange on these topics. No such luck. The same lame arguments as always. They haven't come up with a new argument since 1961.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:52 am

i have read or scanned the previous posts by the 'professor' and i find them wanting. all he can do is insult and run away. no it is not just 'science' there is a difference. Secular science thinks it can get to the truth even when they throw the God of truth out the door and ban him from leading the scientist to the actual truth. sad. All they have left to help them is the father of lies and how they expect to get to the truth when they are led by lies is beyond anyone

as for the flood, there have been regional ones as well over time, again the professor distorts history to make a point.

obviously when the 'professor' states i do not know the bible he is obviously talking about himself.he has no clue about what he types.

then his long post is rife with error and makes no sense whatsoever. no wonder he cannot find anyone to discuss with him, everyone else recognizes how off the wall he is and that it is impossible to discuss the topic with him.
example:
Some Christians seem to think that the ancient Hebrews ALWAYS MUST have been the first to invent or discover this or that--


no one has thought that at all. most scholars, researchers and educated people think it was the Greeks who were the first t invent things,not the Hebrew. trying to talk to someone who does not know anything and closes his mind to information is beyond possible
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

Re: YEC David Tee

Postby archaeologist55 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:52 am

p.s. the 'professor' made a comment on my blog and he was approved
archaeologist55
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 1:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron