Yeah, real research takes work. I'm doing a combined math BS/MS and I'm doing some independent research with a professor in toric varieties. I'm just shocked at how hard I have to work to learn the stuff. Only my professor's assurances that I am not a dunce keep me going.
the Bible says living things were created to reproduce after their own KINDS. What do we see in the world? information in the DNA is lost when 2 kinds reproduce. Do you really believe a butterfly has no designer? I did once, but I realized how the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked just as HIS Word says.
If Jobe Martin is a Biology Major and is a Dentist it doesn't say a lot for the American Education system, I've watched his DVD's and he comes across like a Primary School Teacher. A parrot could do a better job and would make more sense
In what context is Jobe Martin not a scientist? He had a purely scientific background when he was confronted by two of his students about creationism. Dr. Jobe Martin was a biology major at Bucknell University. Martin has a D.M.D. and a Th.M. He is pretty well educated on both sides of the subject of creation vs. evolution.
Actually, Martin is a dentist, but he still had a background in science, so he knows what he is talking about because he has experience from both sides and has made an informed decision.
Does he need to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? His speeches are a combination of scripture readings and facts that are already out there. Either way, he still has a background in science.
I also have a background in science, which does not make me a scientist. I think before we reject the mainstream scientific opinion, we ought to know what the vast majority of scientists say on the subject and why they say it.
Creationists don't typically care what the arguments are, they just repeat whatever reinforces their beliefs.
You asked me why I think JM isn't a scientist and I have told you.
No, if it happened then truly Irreducibly Complex systems would be identified, right? And truly Chicken/Egg scenarios would become common. And the only difference between you and I would be how long our side defies probability.
This time is rapidly approaching. Thanks for the dialog.
This stuff doesn't work. Telling us what other people are thinking, or being conspiratorial is not addressing the issue.
To be effective make your next issue an explanation for why humans are able to recognize truth and beauty. Then explain how life is "created." Then explain how human existence anywhere within this universe defies all probability...then see if you too don't default to a creator.
This "stuff" constitutes the methods used by creationists. The "issue" addressed in this video are those issues. Recognizing beauty and sham "arguments" about probabilities are not an argument for a creator.
the mousetrap is the proof of irreducible complexity. The flagellum is best explained as ic. As long as the Divine is an option, his fingerprints will appear everywhere. If the Divine is not an option, then the impossible (random undirected processes) will be forced to fit. This is why probabilities are important to this discussion.
evolution NEVER claims that and object is working towards a specific goal. thus if the mousetrap serves ANY purpose in the stages leading up to where it is called a "mousetrap" then it is viable under the GTE.
the simple fact that uses could be found for the mousetrap after parts were removed shows this glaring error in judgement on the part of behe.
shows that the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.
also give up the strawmen when attacking evolution. evolution is NOT random.
i love how you made it clear that you view this through the lense of logical fallacy ... even if the GTE WERE impossible (which it is not) creation would not be true by default.
thats whats known as a false dichotomy... look it up if you dont understand.
I've got to learn the second part of that paragraph that Darwin wrote when he talked about the "problem" of the eye, so I can continue the passage when creationists use the first part! Great video.
You're one of my favorite youtubers. I hope you'll be appreciated much more in the near future. by the way, the sequence of response in these two videos should be reversed.
That's very kind of you to say. I would rather be appreciated by a few people who get it. It doesn't bother me that I have few viewers. My delivery is not so polished. Nevertheless, it bothers me that someone with outstanding vids like cdk007 has 2K subscribers, while venomfangx has 5K.
Yeah, real research takes work. I'm doing a combined math BS/MS and I'm doing some independent research with a professor in toric varieties. I'm just shocked at how hard I have to work to learn the stuff. Only my professor's assurances that I am not a dunce keep me going.
AbelianGroup 3 months ago
the Bible says living things were created to reproduce after their own KINDS. What do we see in the world? information in the DNA is lost when 2 kinds reproduce. Do you really believe a butterfly has no designer? I did once, but I realized how the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked just as HIS Word says.
allisvanity2011 1 year ago
@allisvanity2011 What the bible says is irrelevant. "Kinds" are not a scientific taxa. What you just said makes no sense.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Could you perhaps post me some links to the pubjacking evidence please? Thanks.
Bumblefoot69 1 year ago
If Jobe Martin is a Biology Major and is a Dentist it doesn't say a lot for the American Education system, I've watched his DVD's and he comes across like a Primary School Teacher. A parrot could do a better job and would make more sense
Tcheuchter1 2 years ago
In what context is Jobe Martin not a scientist? He had a purely scientific background when he was confronted by two of his students about creationism. Dr. Jobe Martin was a biology major at Bucknell University. Martin has a D.M.D. and a Th.M. He is pretty well educated on both sides of the subject of creation vs. evolution.
CraigKrueger 2 years ago
Martin in a doctor. Most doctors are not scientists any more than most engineers are scientists.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Actually, Martin is a dentist, but he still had a background in science, so he knows what he is talking about because he has experience from both sides and has made an informed decision.
CraigKrueger 2 years ago
Has he done research in science and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals?
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Does he need to publish anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? His speeches are a combination of scripture readings and facts that are already out there. Either way, he still has a background in science.
CraigKrueger 2 years ago
I also have a background in science, which does not make me a scientist. I think before we reject the mainstream scientific opinion, we ought to know what the vast majority of scientists say on the subject and why they say it.
Creationists don't typically care what the arguments are, they just repeat whatever reinforces their beliefs.
You asked me why I think JM isn't a scientist and I have told you.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Atheism is the belief in...nothing
If it were true- there would be...nothing
But because there is something, it cannot possibly be true.
BTW- Falible Fiend is a cyberstalker
moonlightbateman 2 years ago
No, if it happened then truly Irreducibly Complex systems would be identified, right? And truly Chicken/Egg scenarios would become common. And the only difference between you and I would be how long our side defies probability.
This time is rapidly approaching. Thanks for the dialog.
fdzwes 4 years ago
1. We cannot distinguish true IC from "a problem we just haven't yet figured out."
2. In specific cases (bacterial flagellum), IC has already been disproved.
3. Evolution doesn't defy actual probabilities.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
divine (supernatural intervention) is never an option? What if it is what really happened?
fdzwes 4 years ago
If it really happened, it is not analyzable by science. Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
This stuff doesn't work. Telling us what other people are thinking, or being conspiratorial is not addressing the issue.
To be effective make your next issue an explanation for why humans are able to recognize truth and beauty. Then explain how life is "created." Then explain how human existence anywhere within this universe defies all probability...then see if you too don't default to a creator.
fdzwes 4 years ago
This "stuff" constitutes the methods used by creationists. The "issue" addressed in this video are those issues. Recognizing beauty and sham "arguments" about probabilities are not an argument for a creator.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
ok
Cause is the default explanation when considering effect... but...
ok
fdzwes 4 years ago
so ... if you know something happened but dont understand the cause then you assume "god did it"?
sounds pretty scientific to me =P
wouldnt a better method be to study "the effect" and go where the evidence leads us?
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
Yes, if we're allowed. Are we allowed to consider irreducible complexity?
fdzwes 4 years ago
sure .. what would evidence for "this couldnt have evolved in gradual steps" look like?
it kind of makes a negative assertion based on lack of knowledge ... of course i could be mistaking ... have at it and give us an example....
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
the mousetrap is the proof of irreducible complexity. The flagellum is best explained as ic. As long as the Divine is an option, his fingerprints will appear everywhere. If the Divine is not an option, then the impossible (random undirected processes) will be forced to fit. This is why probabilities are important to this discussion.
fdzwes 4 years ago
evolution NEVER claims that and object is working towards a specific goal. thus if the mousetrap serves ANY purpose in the stages leading up to where it is called a "mousetrap" then it is viable under the GTE.
the simple fact that uses could be found for the mousetrap after parts were removed shows this glaring error in judgement on the part of behe.
gee it is potentially reducible after all ...
will continue below.
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
(cont)
/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
shows that the bacterial flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.
also give up the strawmen when attacking evolution. evolution is NOT random.
i love how you made it clear that you view this through the lense of logical fallacy ... even if the GTE WERE impossible (which it is not) creation would not be true by default.
thats whats known as a false dichotomy... look it up if you dont understand.
memoryofakiss 4 years ago
The flagellum is not best explained as IC.
BTW, 'divine' is never an option. IC is not scientific, except in specific case. It cannot be generally proven false, but only in specific cases.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
I've got to learn the second part of that paragraph that Darwin wrote when he talked about the "problem" of the eye, so I can continue the passage when creationists use the first part! Great video.
ltzippy2 4 years ago
It's worth the read.
What you want is Origin of Species, Chapter 6, search and read the para. that starts: "Organs of extreme perfection and complication."
But also search for the later para. that starts, "In the Articulata" ...
Thanks for note, tff.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago
You're one of my favorite youtubers. I hope you'll be appreciated much more in the near future. by the way, the sequence of response in these two videos should be reversed.
PessimisticHumanist 4 years ago
That's very kind of you to say. I would rather be appreciated by a few people who get it. It doesn't bother me that I have few viewers. My delivery is not so polished. Nevertheless, it bothers me that someone with outstanding vids like cdk007 has 2K subscribers, while venomfangx has 5K.
TheFallibleFiend 4 years ago