June 29, 2009

Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution

We watched these from Netflix as part of our homeschooling classes which spurred great discussions about various subjects. I recommend them to anyone that has not seen them. The following is from the marketing of the films.

Do you know?

- If there are creatures that really produce fire to defend themselves?

- How a giraffe gets a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?

- How Geckos can walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution – rather, a revolution – when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. And thus began the evolution of a creationist...



Now, please spare all of us the gripes, complaints, and ad hom's about this gentleman and these films. It is getting old hat to hear such things from atheists out there. Unless that is your "A" game.

41 comments:

  1. So he's talking about irreducible complexity. What good is half an eye, half a pancreas, etc.

    Did you know that geneticist Hermann Muller actually predicted irreducible complexity in 1918? He made a prediction from the theory of evolution, that not only would we find IR, but that it would be a necessary feature of evolution:

    "...a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former."

    And as far as the car goes, let me ask you this: who designed this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Martin,

    Well said, and it is absolutely futile and absurd for these people to compare non-biological machines with biological species.
    I don't even think Ham is doing that any longer.

    Dan and most of the other fundies in the US all quote the same 10 -15people who are either not scientists or are failed scientists who find it easier to work for creationist organizations so they can make up bizarre pseudo science without having to publish in peer reviewed journals.

    Never once have any of them falsified evolution. They provide no data or research whatsoever. Ninety nine percent of their stuff is merely stating that it just couldn't have happened that way, while never giving a reason why.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Once again, Dan, lets grant that what Dr. Martin says in this video is true, that evolution is not a science per se, it’s speculation and philosophy – great, I have no real problem with that right out of the box necessarily.

    However, and this is a BIG however, neither is Intelligent Design a science; its mere speculation and philosophy.

    Let’s use Dr. Martin’s language here. He says that what evolutionary theorists do is “Look through they’re world view glasses” and as a result of this looking and applying forensic science (which we could call inferential science) they say, “the world is old, there must be a process here….” They key of course, isn’t so much that they’re applying scientific techniques as much as they are (according to Dr. Martin) applying a given world view. That world view then (if I understand him correctly) is the result of applying inferential logic incorrectly (or in error) to the animal kingdom.

    Ok, great. So tell me this then, Dan, is Intelligent Design a science? And if so, where is the “operational science” (that science which we can reproduce in a laboratory) which proves that ID is in fact the truth? If there isn’t any (no smoking gun) then of course your use of forensic science (and your irrational inferences) will merely demonstrate that you’re using your own worldview glasses to make irrational assumptions about the world.

    Understand that Mr. Martin is essentially making the argument that forensic science is world view driven and/or presuppositional. So his argument boils down to which presupposition is the correct one, and it’s all based on the “forensic evidence” of evolutionary scientists.

    I just smacked you with your own hand.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From Flute's link:
    "In his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box the intelligent design creationist Michael Behe reviewed the same argument as "irreducible complexity" which he claimed to have found in various organisms, but he agreed that Darwinian natural selection may possibly have been responsible for the formation of the bombardier beetle defensive system.[5] Another creationist analysis published by Answers in Genesis accepts much of the scientific view, but contends that complexity suggests an origin by design.[5]"

    I have watched that every year over the last twenty years these creationists abandon one of their long held fallacies.

    It's like a kid saying, OK there is no santa claus, but is there a tooth fairy?

    There are far more perplexing mechanics of evolution than the giraffe and the beetle.

    The main reason creationists like to use the giraffe is that there is very little fossil evidence.

    These paradoxes in no way threaten the fact of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In addition to what has already been said here, I'll just add this. Sure, there is stuff that science cannot yet explain, including how exactly geckos evolved to take advantage of Van der Waal's force. But here's the kicker: while science cannot explain everything yet, and more than likely will never be able to explain some things, it has a very good track record of coming up with explanations. And guess what: ID cannot explain geckos either, unless you consider "Intelligent Designer Go Poof!" to be an explanation.

    I don't. For me, an explanation must have information content, and "it just happened", or "goddidit" or "IDGP" all have null information content: they do not enable us to make predictions. Evolutionary theory can make predictions, or if it can't, it just says "dunno", which also tells you nothing about the phenomenon in question, but has the advantage of not multiplying entities beyond necessity, and of not claiming to know something it doesn't know jack about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We wouldn't need to make our 'old hat' complaints if creationists didn't keep trotting out the same tired old rubbish like this.

    Creationists roll out some failed scientist because they know that the Doctor title will automatically defer some special authority on the owner in the eyes of the gullible theist masses (what was that about labcoatauthoritarians again Dan?) and then get them to spout drivel on camera.

    Video 1:
    Irreducible complexity [ID proponents haven't even proved this exists yet, let alone that it disproves evolution - what use is half an eye? well, in the world of the blind the one eyed man is king].

    A car is designed = animals are designed. [An animal needs a designer like a fish needs a bike].

    It then descends into even more random rubbish - fossils tell us nothing, worldviews (presuppositions), explosions can't create order [hint: the 'Big Bang' wasn't an explosion] and how Evolution isn't real science [well OK but ID isn't even real pseudo-science - see we can all do the playground level "I know I am but what are you?" insults].

    Video 2:
    There were some frauds in Evolution = Evolution is false [utter balls of course as this is one big ad hom and just makes creationists look stupid when they make it not to mention how it was other scientists that exposed the frauds in the first place]

    Oh and evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) is a proven fact - the theory of evolution (the mechanisms by which evolution takes place) will never be proven - it's merely the best explanation of the observed data. It may be amended, it may even be falsified, but it will never be 'proven'.

    Video 3:
    Where we learn that 'Dr.' Martin was a dentist (with a Masters in Theology and an undergraduate degree majoring in Biology and Music.)

    He then shows that he doesn't understand the ToE in the slightest - the idiot claims the ToE has spontaneous generation as an underlying assumption - wait, what? since when did the ToE care one whit about abiogenesis? - in fact spontaneous generation was actually a foundation stone of early Christianity (see Augustine Of Hippo's discussion of the subject in 'The City of God' and 'The Literal Meaning of genesis'.

    The ignoramus compounds the stupidity by claiming that the ToE's second assumption is that spontaneous generation occurred only once.

    he finally gets to the ToE on assumption #3 (that all life is related) - apparently this is wrong because there's nothing on the lines they draw to connect various organism (he's setting up a God of the gaps at this point, you can literally see it happening). He then pretty much asks for a crocoduck to prove that birds and reptiles are related (he must be a relative of Ray 'Bananman' Comfort. This all of course leads to the "Evolution is faith based" argument - because science isn't omniscient then faith is the only way you can accept evolution ... puhleeease.

    to be cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Praying for everyone on this message board.

      Delete
  7. Video 4:
    He starts with his conversion from Evolution believer to Creationist - it plays out like a Chick Tract ffs. His students challenged him and he couldn't answer - a bit of research later and he's disproved evolution and the only alternative is Goddidit - I mean just look at the Bombadier beetle (Creationists might want to avoid Flute's link above which explains how the beetle evolved) - it's just an argument from ignorance.

    Video 5:
    This is just brilliant - apparently the appearance of fine tuning evident in chickens, from embryo through to hatchling, is proof that 'Goddidit' - there's blood vessels and an air sac and it has to do things on certain days and of course that means God made all the little animals cause 'Dr' Martin can't see how it can have happened any other way.

    Video 6:
    We move onto the Melipona bee and vanilla plants (orchids).

    Apparently the vanilla flower only opens once on one morning, only for a few hours (5 minutes on wiki show they open in the morning and stay open until late afternoon, considerably extending the window of opportunity but I digress) and apparently only the Melipona bee can pollinate the flower (we'll quietly ignore hummingbirds because some Spanish explorer back in the 1800's didn't notice them pollinating the vanilla orchid and because it pisses on our claim of exclusivity).

    The bee and the orchid must have been 'made' together and for each other specifically or the vanilla orchid would have died out in one generation.

    Yawn, the concept of specialisation has totally bypassed this pillock. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch (unless you're pathologically terrified of exposing your religious beliefs to some testing that is) to see how a plant may once have been pollinated by several types of insects but over time the plant and the insects have changed so that you're left with just one insect that continues to pollinate one flower type (even thought this isn't the case here, remember those hummingbirds I mentioned).

    He, of course, shies away from noting that the Melipona bee doesn't restrict itself to vanilla orchids - that might take away from his assertion that they're 'made' for one another.

    Video 7:
    The ignorance just keeps on coming with 'the Dragonfly'. It starts off as a larvae which eats, amongst other things, tadpoles and sometimes when it catches a tadpole that tadpole will send out a signal to other tadpoles that causes them to change colour. Apparently the colour change allows the tadpole to swim faster and so avoid other dragonfly larvae. "Quelle le frig", I mean, c'mon people d'you really expect me to accept this version of events as accurate?
    A far more likely version is investigated here  the experiment shows that where there is a high number of predators tadpole morphology changes so that they have smaller bodies and larger tails, which would, I would guess, lead to them being faster and more able to elude predators.

    [Slightly off topic for a moment for a bit of light relief - the larval dragonfly  actually breathes through it's arse (unlike creationists who just talk out of theirs) it also gets around by farting]

    Sheesh, now I need a minute to shake off the stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First things first.

    Who is the person in the video? After all, we wouldn't want to uncritically accept the musings of an unqualified person, would we?

    From the the website of "Dr. Jobe Martin":

    Jobe Martin, a native of Bloomsburg, PA, was a biology major at Bucknell University and a 1966 graduate of the University of Pittsburgh Dental School. After spending two years in the Air Force, he established a private dental practice at NASA in Houston. Jobe and his wife, Jenna Dee, moved to Dallas in 1971 when he assumed a teaching post at the Baylor College of Dentistry. In 1982, he made the decision to enroll at Dallas Theological Seminary. He graduated in 1986 with a Masters of Theology in Systematic Theology. Dr. Martin also has an Associates Degree in Business from Eastfield Community College in Dallas. 

    So... The last time the good dentist took a course related to biology was in 1986, if we are so kind as to assume that Dallas Theological Seminary taught anything of the sort. Take away that generosity, and the last time this dentist took a biology-related course would have been -- at best -- during dentistry school, c. 1966.

    To have a person with these credentials lecturing on creation versus evolution, and to have his lectures be taken seriously, is like having a dentist lecture on creation versus evolution, and to have his lectures taken seriously...

    Oh. Weird coincidence there, eh?

    Albert Einstein was a patent clerk when he formulated and began circulating his Special Theory of Relativity, true, but he also had a degree in mathematics and physics, and he had been researching and publishing material in physics-related fields. Also, Einstein's most well-known theories (Special and General Relativity) came within five and twelve years of his graduation.

    That's five years, independently for one, and 12 years, independently for the other -- not the product of the two, or sixty years. Sixty years? Anybody who thought his knowledge in a scientific field was up-to-date or relevant sixty years after taking a related course is a nutjob.

    Oh. Weird coincidence there, eh?

    Anyway...

    ~4:45 (first section): "I don't know of any explosions that you can make things get better..."

    Really? Ever heard of a railroad tunnel, or a road which cuts through the side of a hill? Ever heard of the Kingdome (destroying that thing was much better than leaving it)?

    ~1:45 (second section): "When a distinguished man with a Ph.D. degree and a labcoat gets up in front of the average Joe Sixpack... He's not talking science."

    What do we call it, then, when a dentist gets up in front of the average Joe Sixpack?

    ~2:10 (third section): "The probability of [life coming from non-life] happening is zero."

    This guy doesn't understand math very well, does he?

    ReplyDelete
  9. ~2:35 (third section): "The probability of amino acids ... bonding together to become a simple protein is something like 1 to the 141st power; that's a minus 141st power..."

    ~2:55 (third section): "Some people believe that there are only 1 to the 80th power electrons in the whole universe..."

    Heh. Dumbass. One would think these tools would have somebody on staff to screen these things for accuracy. The fact that "1 to the [minus] 141st power," or "1 to the 80th power" get past any such editing or screening process speaks volumes to the ability of these dipshits to perform any valid science.

    [Note to Dan and his friends: 1 to any power is still 1, and anyone who wants to sound like they're speaking intelligently on a subject which uses even elementary algebra should fucking know better. A W-esque speaking error is somewhat understandable, but passing the editing phase is not.]

    ~0:50 (fourth section): "I had never had a single professor tell me about an assumption."

    Bullshit. Then he'd never taken physics (at least one course of which is required for any science degree, including biology), nor chemistry, nor biology...

    ...unless he got his degree from ORU, George Fox, or some other Christian "university" that teaches creationism instead of science.

    ~1:04 (lost track): "...[tadpoles] turned a little different color so they can swim faster... I mean, no way that evolution has the answer..."

    I mean, no way is that a valid argument... Seriously? He's contending that mere color change causes physical attributes of tadpoles to change? What are they, the Incredible Hulk?

    ~total boredom (who cares which section): "[something about an 88-hour flight from Alaska to Hawaii proving that god made these birds the way they are today.]

    ...except, like these birds, Alaska and Hawaii weren't always in their current positions, either. The timescales required for evolution -- chief among reasons for its dismissal when first proposed -- are supported by geology and astronomy/cosmology. As with the apparently acceptable explanation of migration from Texas to Mexico, when the ancestors of this bird began migration patterns, they weren't going from the Arctic circle to the Tropic of Cancer in a single shot.

    But why would I bother with this jackass, who thinks that 1 to the [doesn't matter] power is equal to 10 to the same power...?

    "So, only god could do that because the evolutionary explanation doesn't fit."

    Right. I've seen enough. Next time you want to waste my time in such a fashion, Dan, at least have the common decency to give me a reach-around. This whole thing reminds me of a disappointment of a lecture I attended, billed as a scientific look at Intelligent Design. At one point during the lecture, the speaker went from showing a slide with apparent "evidence" of 6-day creation timescales to a slide with nothing more than a quote from Psalms.

    After the lecture, I asked him where the science was when he went from "evidence" to "goddidit," but as my question wasn't so simply put, he claimed not to understand the question, and I failed to receive an answer. Suffice it to say, there is no science involved in that slide transition, just like there is no science involved in this dentist's critique of a field about which he evidently knows nothing.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, all you creationists out there, have a look at this picture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dentistry is a honorable profession. But, really? A dentist has proven evolution wrong? Do I have that right? Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ha-ha,
    a dentist. Way to go Stan!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rufus,

    Yes, a dentist. Just like a priest,Lemaître, was correct about the universe expanding, sarcastically dubbed 'big bang', instead of the incorrect belief, as Einstein, of steady state.

    Granted that Lemaître was a physics professor but still, Einstein et al, were shown to be wrong. It does happen.

    I guess Ad Hom's is the 'A' game then. sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. freddies_dead and Stan,

    Thanks for the exhaustive input. I learn more about Atheists everyday and this is no exception.

    I am beginning to understand that only a pure act of God will change the minds and hard hearts of the wicked, like myself. The data could be taken both ways which is interesting in itself.

    I just heard the other day about the sediment just after the KT boundary. It was explained that the mass of sediment must have come from the intense fire and global flooding of the supposed meteor that destroyed the Dinosaurs. No thought, or discussion, of any flood came to his mind. Of course sediment could "never" come from a global flood as described in the Bible, that would be impossible. Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sigh my ass, Dan. I wasn't attacking the man. I don't see what his qualifications are on this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, I suppose the sediment could have come from a world wide flood. And I suppose that snakes and asses could speak. And I suppose if you put peeled, striped sticks in front of cattle when they breed it will produce cattle that are striped (or however that one goes; I may have it wrong). And I suppose that human beings who have been dead for days could live again. But then science wouldn't matter, would it? What would be the point?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes, a dentist. Just like a priest,Lemaître, was correct about the universe expanding, sarcastically dubbed 'big bang', instead of the incorrect belief, as Einstein, of steady state.

    Granted that Lemaître was a physics professor
     

    Precisely. Lemaître was a physics professor. This guy is a dentist. Lemaître was also wrong, according to you, since he accepted a very old universe. What was your point, again?

    Tell you what, Dan, you said you were a small business owner. Let's say you have an opening, and you're looking to hire. How does that process go, exactly? Do you ask for, oh, I don't know, a résumé? Do you look over the qualifications of an applicant?

    Or do you just ask them what they believe regarding Genesis?

    If the position in question is that of an accountant, do you check to see if the applicant has any accounting-related education, or experience? If an applicant for this accountant position presented a résumé citing an undergraduate degree in accounting from sixty years ago, and no accounting-related work experience since, would you consider hiring him over a recent graduate?

    Credentials are not meaningless, and an exposition of them is not ad hominem. Nowhere did I attack the man for being a dentist, but certainly, and appropriately, I noted that whatever education he has pertaining to biology is quite outdated, failing additions to his pseudo-CV (an actual CV is evidently unavailable).

    All that being said, what of the piss-poor editing that allowed the slip of "one to the 141st power"? I allowed that the mistake is "honest," and that the guy probably meant "ten to the [whatever]," but more damning is that the mistake made it to the final cut. Three times. If a single knowledgeable person had watched this footage prior to its release, a simple retake could have avoided this embarrassment. Instead, it has apparently gone unnoticed to final press, and has been published with the error intact.

    Even you cannot deny that error, and if the editing/pre-screening crew did not catch it -- and I've no doubt that you didn't notice it -- what other factual errors might they have missed? If the production group did not hire a single person to verify the content for scientific accuracy, whether in the editing room or during screening, then how valuable a source is the material such a group produces?

    Seriously. In the age of the internet, digital media, and YouTube, any jackass can create a film series, and even have it look pretty. If you're going to trot out every Tom, Dick, and Jobe who claim to refute evolution and/or Big Bang cosmology (or an old universe in general), and stipulate that we can't say anything about their background, then you can get bent.

    I learn more about Atheists everyday and this is no exception. 

    Yeah, and I learn more about Dan and other YECs every day, too. Today I learned that their method of evaluating a source consists entirely of verifying that the source agrees with their position. Regardless of credentials, all comers are welcome, if (and only if) they take Ken Ham's oath to affirm a literal view of Genesis.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  18. I guess Ad Hom's is the 'A' game then. sigh.

    What are you talking about? We all responded to the ridiculous arguments Dr Martin made, AND called him unqualified.

    Ad hominem does not mean to attack a person. Ad hominem means to attack a person instead of answering their arguments.

    I offered you Herman Muller's prediction of IR, Stan and everyone else responded point by point to the ridiculous creationist claims, and ALSO called Dr Martin "unqualified."

    Apparently all you heard was the last point.

    In fact, YOU are the one engaging in the ad hominem fallcy.

    You a) never responded to a single point we made and then b) attacked us for ad homs. In other words, you attacked us instead of answering the arguments.

    Irony meter, much?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course sediment could "never" come from a global flood as described in the Bible, that would be impossible.

    The impact theory is accepted due to high iridium content in the KT layer.

    Iridium is rare in Earth's crust but abundant in asteroids and meteors.

    You know what else is found in the KT layer but not in other layers?

    Shocked quartz.

    Do you know what shocked quartz is?

    Shocked quartz is only created by the extreme pressure caused by an impact event. It was discovered during atomic bomb testing, and around craters such as Meteor Crater in Arizona.

    In other words, detective work led to the impact event theory, not "anti-Biblical presuppositions."

    ReplyDelete
  20. You all are crying crocodile tears about the qualifications of Dr. Martin and then you trust Richard Dawkins, an accomplished biologist granted, to run from the lab to write your bible 'the God delusion', straying out of his field with a complete ignorance of history to claim that people didn't kill in the name of atheism. Give me a break here. I will post about that tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey Dan. I've never read The God Delusion, so fuck off.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan, you don't actually read anything we write, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes I do Martin, evidenced by this comment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You all are crying crocodile tears about the qualifications of Dr. Martin... 

    Dude. He's a dentist. I don't know how many dentists you personally know, nor how many you've had work on your teeth (though some recently, based on your root canal comments), but I know at least three personally, and have [enjoyed] the services of at least a half-dozen more...

    ...and not one of them is referred to, by their own staff even, as "Doctor." The fact that you seek to call this fellow "Dr. Martin" exposes your own "labcoatauthoritarianism," or at least your desire that we'd blindly accept the words of someone with the title.

    The résumé issue stands -- qualifications are relevant. If you're going to make an argument pertinent to a particular field (especially science), yet be apparently unqualified in that field, you'd damned well better be able to back up your claims with either direct and incontrovertible evidence, or some amazing and verifiable claims of experience and/or hobby-knowledge.

    ...and then you trust Richard Dawkins... 

    Don't you mean Doctor Richard Dawkins? Do your attempts at inflating a person's qualifications only apply to dentists?

    ...an accomplished biologist granted... 

    Oh, some props, at least... I guess you concede, then, that Dawkins is far more qualified to speak to the Theory of Evolution than Dr. Martin?

    ...to run from the lab to write your bible 'the God delusion' 

    [Ed. note: book titles are italicized or _underlined_ (<u> is not accepted?), not single-quoted. Also, the first word, and 'major' words, in a book's title are capitalized.]

    "We" don't have a bible. "You" do. Dawkins is a prominent biologist, and The God Delusion works almost exclusively from a Darwinian perspective. You should read it. After all, most of us have read your bible...

    ...straying out of his field... 

    If religion developed through evolutionary processes, which seems to be the case, then it is very much relevant to his field...

    ReplyDelete
  25. ...as opposed to dentistry. I'll concede this point, however, if you'll immediately withdraw all support for Dr. Martin in this matter, since he has quite obviously strayed from his own field of dentistry.

    Pending your approval, then, any of Dr. Martin's arguments which deal not with dentistry, but evolution or any other field, are moot, including but not limited to this video series. Likewise, any of Richard Dawkins' arguments which deal not with evolution, but dentistry or any other field, are moot, including applicable arguments in The God Delusion, though not including The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Unweaving the Rainbow, and others as appropriate.

    ...with a complete ignorance of history to claim that people didn't kill in the name of atheism. 

    Wait, what? Who in history has decreed that a culture, ethnic group, nationality, religious group, or individual should die as an enactment of [nobody's] will?

    You're silly. Just because you hate the fact that people have, and do kill in the name of Jesus, or Yahweh, or Allah, or every other deity, which is a crime to which Atheism is immune, does not mean you can just make things up. People don't kill in the name of Atheism because it doesn't make sense. If somebody did claim to kill in the name of Atheism, that person would correctly be classified as insane, whereas people who kill in the name of Jesus or Yahweh are more likely to be classified as a Saint, Prophet, Patriarch, Pope, or some other "holy" title.

    Your complaints against that particular argument are so silly as to betray your inner fear -- you recognize that people do kill in the name of your god, and you even believe this was good and proper in certain cases, and it vexes you. You recognize that the only thing separating the insanity-driven, megalomaniacal, genocidal slaughter of Canaanite cultures from the just, loving, righteous slaughter of Canaanite cultures is a sentence in a dusty book, and you see how weak an argument it is to say that killing in the name of a deity is insanity (unless that deity is mine and the killing is explicitly decreed in this dusty tome, or you agree with the killing for reasons no doubt based on interpretation of the dusty tome).

    People don't murder/kill in the name of Atheism. That's a theist problem, exclusively. Atheists don't have a category called "righteous killing"; to us, it's all insanity-driven murder.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  26. You all are crying crocodile tears about the qualifications of Dr. Martin and then you trust Richard Dawkins, an accomplished biologist granted, to run from the lab to write your bible 'the God delusion', straying out of his field with a complete ignorance of history to claim that people didn't kill in the name of atheism. Give me a break here. I will post about that tomorrow.
     
    Dan...have you not read anything those guys posted about their refuting the points made by Dr. Martin? You've said nothing that indicates you have. You latch onto them calling him "unqualified" and you then start squealing like a pig.

    Read their comments over and respond to the rest of their points please.

    Remember what Martin said:
    I offered you Herman Muller's prediction of IR, Stan and everyone else responded point by point to the ridiculous creationist claims, and ALSO called Dr Martin "unqualified."

    Apparently all you heard was the last point.


    At least Dawkins was an actual scientist who's checked into things like evolutionary biology...

    Mind you, I've never read his books either so I don't really care.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Poor old Dan, another of his claims is thoroughly debunked and all he can do is sulk and claim we cheated.

    Never mind Dan, there's always tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan, I think the previous posts have easily refuted this 'Dr.' Martin's points and then followed with showing that it should be no surprise since he is not qualified to critique the subject of evolution.

    You on the other hand have done nothing so far but prop up Dr. Martin's arguments on your blog and get upset when we tell you why they fail.

    If you believe Dr. Martin is correct, please respond to the points others have made that refute them, instead of engaging in the ad hominems yourself.

    Also, concerning Richard Dawkins and other authors and resources I might use, please stop making assumptions about how I evaluate them. No matter what a persons qualifications are, I do not take their claims or opinions without question. I am skeptical about everything I read and look for other sources to confirm or refute these claims. I can't speak for others here but based on what I've seen, I can assume that most of them do also.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Yes I do Martin, evidenced by this comment."

    We all refuted Dr Martin's points and then some. The ONLY thing you've done is focus on how we attacked his qualifications. That's all you've done. You have nothing to say at all about the actual responses we posted. Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  30. OK Stan you're completely right...














    I should of said Dr Dawkins. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan, you say:

    I just heard the other day about the sediment just after the KT boundary. It was explained that the mass of sediment must have come from the intense fire and global flooding of the supposed meteor that destroyed the Dinosaurs. No thought, or discussion, of any flood came to his mind. Of course sediment could "never" come from a global flood as described in the Bible, that would be impossible. Meh.

    Meh indeed. Tell me, Dan, how much do you actually know about this "mass of sediment" and "global flooding" allegedly caused by the KT event? Methinks you are indulging in wishful deluvial thinking, because there is only a very thin layer of sediment that testifies to a probable meteorite impact, containing the iridium and shocked quartz that Martin spoke of. It is found in many places around the world, but that's just to be expected: when Pinatubo erupted in 1991, dust from the explosion spread over the whole
    Earth. And the KT event was much bigger.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no evidence for global flooding at the KT boundary or indeed at any other time. That's a story from the Bible, not from the rocks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What I'm seeing is the same old thing. If it can't be explained, "yet", it must have been created by some supreme being. That just doesn't cut it. That is what's called blind faith. I could ask you, where did your god come from? You would say, he was always here. You could ask me, where did the original matter that makes up everything come from? I could say, it was always here. Stalemate. No proof of any of it.

    If there is a god who made everything and is all wise and knowing, answer this one for me. Why in the world would he put a gland in a man's body surrounding the urinary tract so that when you got older and it enlarged, it would pinch off the smooth flow of urine? To me that is a really stupid design. Of course you would come back with, god works in mysterious ways, or, he does this to test us. Hmmm, again, blind faith with no proof.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did provide said proof in my newest post. Basically, God is the precondition for intelligibly. God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

      So tell me, how do you know your reasoning about the prostate, or anything, is valid?

      Delete
  33. After reading all the comments and hearing the arguments against "Creation", for 1 I'm not sure everyone is even speaking the same language, and 2 it's irrelevant if the whole point is to deny God in the process by whatever slippery means possible and what is most amazing is WHY would anyone WANT to Deny God to begin with? It makes no sense other than 'intellectually it makes not sense to me' and/or "I have a problem with it".well.of course there is no god then, because that god is one's self but surely that is acting 'like' a god as if anyone would know for 'where were you when the earth was made?!" No one was there so nothing regarding how this planet got here can be proved by science since all things of science are based on an earth that is already here. . This is again the lie in the Garden of Eden the snake said (whether that story is true or not..the point is true ). Regardless, like it is sad and it's this basic, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink...and..at that point, it's like beating a dead horse..it doesn't drink..it's dead..so why do we keep trying to beat it? Only God will bring a person or lead one to his senses, (or in this case back to life with Living Water) but it's all putting the cart before the horse. It was said back then and it can be said again just as in the words of Jesus, "You stiff necked people" white washed tombs filled with dead man's bones. many are already dead, they are just awaiting to DEVOLVE back to dust. Oh, yes, Jesus definitely did exist, do the research.

    ReplyDelete
  34. typical evotard bullshit of just ignoring the gist of the doco, no thought is given by the evotard to the possibility that evolution may be wrong. For all we know this whole world and all that is in it could be computer generated

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>