Dr. Jobe Martin Challenges Atheists

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-05 02:25pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNvxnPNZuAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBrbK1kujH0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lUja6ByhJ0

Those are short videos, you should really watch them all.

Basically this is a "i can't understand it, so an invisible man must have made it all in one day" video.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-01-05 02:29pm

Who the fuck is Dr Jobe Martin and why should I care?

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2007-01-05 02:33pm

I don't see how the Beeter destroys evolution, at all. It's certainly conceivable that there were beetles who operated in the single large explosion manner, and were killed; and via Natural Selection, only the ones who were able to control their explosions were the ones left alive. That guy is a complete idiot.

AK_Jedi · Post by **AK_Jedi** » 2007-01-05 02:43pm

the Bombardier beetle argument for creation has been refuted several times. I don't have the biological expertise to fully understand any of this, but I think that this page gives a fairly good counter argument.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2007-01-05 02:44pm

At some point - and this may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow - many of you young bloods will realize that there are no new arguments from the creationist camp; merely old lies restated because they haven't bothered to listen to or follow advances in scientific knowledge. In fact, there are well-described theories for how the Bombardier Beetle does its thing - but how many average people are going to have access to that literature, read it if they did, or understand it if they do?

Besides which, fuck Martin.

From his bio at biblicaldiscipleship.org: "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.

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."

Bolding mine. He's a dentist and a preacher, who studied biology only insofar as it allowed him to fill cavities for real scientists down at NASA.

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-05 03:42pm

What about the woodpecker argument?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-01-05 03:43pm

WarHawk wrote:What about the woodpecker argument?

Is this another idiotic argument along the lines of creature x has y feature that we cannot explain, therefore god did it?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-05 03:52pm

The best accounting for well researched animals is that the magical patriarch of judeo-christian religion. It is all so clear to me now, I mean...there's a beetle that shoots hot chemicals out of its ass, and this means that a magical person designed it that way to get away from the predators it also designed. Wait a minute, why would you design predators if you didn't want that animal to die?

MAGIC! IT'S ALL DONE BY MAGIC!

WarHawk · Post by **WarHawk** » 2007-01-05 03:53pm

General Zod wrote:
WarHawk wrote:What about the woodpecker argument?
Is this another idiotic argument along the lines of creature x has y feature that we cannot explain, therefore god did it?

Yes, thats exactly what i said in the original post.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-01-05 06:59pm

Lagmonster wrote:At some point - and this may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow - many of you young bloods will realize that there are no new arguments from the creationist camp; merely old lies restated because they haven't bothered to listen to or follow advances in scientific knowledge. In fact, there are well-described theories for how the Bombardier Beetle does its thing - but how many average people are going to have access to that literature, read it if they did, or understand it if they do?

Besides which, fuck Martin.

From his bio at biblicaldiscipleship.org: "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.

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."

Bolding mine. He's a dentist and a preacher, who studied biology only insofar as it allowed him to fill cavities for real scientists down at NASA.

To his credit pre-denistry requires a good bedrock in the biological and chemical sciences in undergrad, with applied work in graduate school. Some of the obscene shit MDs and dentists, etc. say really begs the question of how thorough our science education is in many universities even.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-05 07:17pm

I think it goes to show that you don't need a good all around analytical mind to do well in science, you just need to be really knowledgable on a specific field, all the implications and logical extensions don't have to be contemplated to get ahead, just a relaying of the facts observed or already written.

At the end of the day, it's a lot easier to just tow a party line instead of making the effort to independently reason; everyone does it.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2007-01-05 08:23pm

WarHawk wrote:What about the woodpecker argument?

Unsurprisingly this was covered on TalkOriginsmany years ago.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2007-01-05 08:29pm

Rye wrote:I think it goes to show that you don't need a good all around analytical mind to do well in science, you just need to be really knowledgable on a specific field, all the implications and logical extensions don't have to be contemplated to get ahead, just a relaying of the facts observed or already written.

At the end of the day, it's a lot easier to just tow a party line instead of making the effort to independently reason; everyone does it.

It's TOE the line, not TOW the line. Wrong word.

And this guy just sounds like another creationist know-nothing.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2007-01-05 08:30pm

I challenge Dr Martin to suck my balls.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-05 08:44pm

You can always tell you're dealing with a moron the instant he tries to pretend that evolution theory and Big Bang cosmology are the same thing. I especially like the way they try to defend this ridiculous distortion by saying that one "supports" the other or is "related" to the other. Virtually all branches of science can be said to be related to one another.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-01-05 09:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:You can always tell you're dealing with a moron the instant he tries to pretend that evolution theory and Big Bang cosmology are the same thing. I especially like the way they try to defend this ridiculous distortion by saying that one "supports" the other or is "related" to the other. Virtually all branches of science can be said to be related to one another.

They're all investigating "reality" and not "the reality of the Bible," hence they are a tangled web of secularist assumptions and ad hoc bible-denial! Lies of the Adversary and so on... Can I get an AMEN?

Singular Intellect · Post by **Singular Intellect** » 2007-01-05 10:50pm

Perhaps next he could dazzle us by challenging the "theory" of gravity?

The results should be exactly the same.

Medic · Post by **Medic** » 2007-01-05 11:57pm

Lagmonster wrote:At some point - and this may not be today, and it may not be tomorrow - many of you young bloods will realize that there are no new arguments from the creationist camp; merely old lies restated because they haven't bothered to listen to or follow advances in scientific knowledge.

Point, but come on, it's exciting when it feels like you're on the front-line.

I don't think I once heard the words "DNA" or "fossil" in those videos. In other words he's omitting entire fields of science that have a say-so about evolution.

He's also a serious one-trick pony, and as it is, cherry picked some of the more seemingly improbable lifeforms.

For the life of me I can't remember it but Darwin noted just as much, alluding to the cruelty of nature and natural selection creating so many organisms unfit for survival, or not nearly as ideally suited as they could be. For every example of something incredibly and seemingly contrary to evolution, for every "wow, life, therefore God (the CHRISTIAN GOD!)" there's ought to be many, many more "wow, life... what the FUCK was god on?" Apparently, after googling a lot, angels and demons account for such less-than-perfect variations in the ID movement.

Seriously, I didn't make that up.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2007-01-06 12:12am

If anyone could show me one of these idiots who doesn't use appeals to ignorance, I would be impressed.

From Behe to Gish to Hovind, all these retards have is their God of the Gaps.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2007-01-06 12:30am

He claims he was taught evolution is Big Bang -> Hydrogen -> Dust -> Earth -> Volcanoes -> Water -> Pond+X-ray=Life? That is unbelievably wrong.

RazorOutlaw · Post by **RazorOutlaw** » 2007-01-06 01:10am

I'm not sure if anybody checked out the comments section on the website by SPC Brungardt posted, but that was perhaps the most tiring debate I've ever had to read. They went from discussing suboptimal design, to the ethtics of a flawed design, to morality in general.

Unfortunately the fundamentalist debating there was the loudest out of all of them (and by that I mean he had an arsenal of websites to sling at people, among other things) and the guy who wrote the article only put in a few token words in his own defense.

I know, I know, off topic basically. I was amused and appalled how much the debating style was similar to J.P. Holding's at Tektonics.org

Anyway the whole diatrabe began when the fundie took the time to attack Darwin's logic (which someone pointed out MUCH later in the comments section that his logic was based on what Darwin man knew at the time). Funny, almost as if by knocking down Darwin you knock down evolution.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-01-06 03:02am

The American Religious Right thinks that Darwinism is lousy scientific theory but good social policy. Liberal scientists think that Darwinism is a good scientific theory but lousy social policy. And the rest just watch football and get led around like sheep.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2007-01-06 11:35am

RazorOutlaw wrote: Anyway the whole diatrabe began when the fundie took the time to attack Darwin's logic (which someone pointed out MUCH later in the comments section that his logic was based on what Darwin man knew at the time). Funny, almost as if by knocking down Darwin you knock down evolution.

Their entire worldview is based on the assertions of authority. They presume, then, that by going after the 'authority' on evolution, they can attack the theory.

----

I was wondering.. why is it that geology gets off free in the Creationism v. Reality conflict? It draws an identical conclusion: the current state of affairs is not the result of recent creation by an omnipotent being, but gradual development over billions of years. Yet, aside from 'flood geology', which doesn't so much attack geology as propose an alternative hypothesis, I havn't seen any challenges of the 'theory of plate tektonics', or what-have-you.

Gaidin · Post by **Gaidin** » 2007-01-06 04:31pm

Feil wrote:
I was wondering.. why is it that geology gets off free in the Creationism v. Reality conflict? It draws an identical conclusion: the current state of affairs is not the result of recent creation by an omnipotent being, but gradual development over billions of years. Yet, aside from 'flood geology', which doesn't so much attack geology as propose an alternative hypothesis, I havn't seen any challenges of the 'theory of plate tektonics', or what-have-you.

I always figured it was because the hard numbers of geology are easier for the creationist to understand and thus harder to dismiss out of hand. Where some of the more advanced parts of evolutionary theory its not that unbelievable to see someone not familiar with it(also who doesn't want to be familiar with it) go "That doesn't make sense...forget that."

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-01-06 07:08pm

Pretty much every idiot creationist bullshit argument in the book. I can't believe he is actually bringing up the Bombardier beetle example which was proven to be an bunch of out-right lies years ago. Is it any surprise he became a creationist at a university as religious as Baylor; a BAPTIST University? How could he claim to be a Christian and never hear about "Creation Science"; CS is nothing more than the first two chapters of Genesis. Every Christian in the world has read those verses. What biology professor would NOT mention assumptions? He's clearly just a lying asshole like most Creationists.