Intelligent Design

Evolution Professor Sets New Record With 1.5 Hits Per Minute in Debate

Spread the love

Evolution is a fact, but what kind of fact? To answer this question one must listen to the evolutionists. In his recentdebate versus Paul Nelson, Joel Velasco gave a nonstop version of Darwin’s one-long argument that, once again, makes clear what kind of fact evolution is. Velasco gave a rapid-fire rundown of the scientific misrepresentation, logical excursion and, most importantly,  read more

11 Replies to “Evolution Professor Sets New Record With 1.5 Hits Per Minute in Debate

  1. 1
    ScuzzaMan says:

    It would be useful to see the alleged violations identified and classified, with supporting data and argument.

    Otherwise, this story is still just another story about another story about evolution, which is a little bit unfortunate given it is intended as a criticism of story-telling.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Well ScuzzaMan, that would certainly be interesting to see the exact breakdown that Dr. Hunter and, I suppose, his students found of,,,

    13 scientifically misleading or downright false statements, 18 bare assertions or circular statements, 5 just-so stories, 6 miscellaneous fallacies, and, of course at the top of the list, 21 non scientific, metaphysical claims. That is a total of 63 violations of science in a mere 42 minutes, for an astonishing rate of 1.5 hits per minute.

    but,,, Myself when I first encountered the ‘science’ of Darwinism, I was absolutely shocked to find the lack of rigor in evolutionary thought. I worked on Jet Engines in the Air Force, and I worked as an Instrumentation Technician in a chemical factory after my service. Exact measurements and testing were crucial in both endeavors. Catastrophe was certainly inevitable otherwise. There is none of that rigorous testing and measurement in evolutionary ‘science’. Moreover, as if that was not enough to exclude Darwinism as a true ‘science’, I’ve found no foundation to evolutionary thought in science. Everything is simply assumed. For instance, as a starting assumption for their theory Darwinists assume that reductive materialism is true for reality, ignoring the fact that advances in quantum mechanics have falsified reductive materialism as true.

    Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism – By Bruce L Gordon:
    Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.
    http://www.4truth.net/fourtrut.....8589952939

    Moreover, Darwinists have an unexamined postulate of ‘randomness’ at the base of their theory. But when this postulate is examined it is found to be, number 1, synonymous with the word ‘miracle’,,

    While they (Darwinian Biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”
    Wolfgang Pauli

    Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness – Talbott – Fall 2011
    Excerpt: In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.”
    This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?”
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/.....randomness

    and number two, randomness, as Darwinists use the word, is also found to be co-terminus with entropic concerns. Entropic concerns which, despite the vehement denials of Darwinists to the contrary, render any Darwinian explanations null and void:

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    Natural selection is also pierced through and through with such lack of scientific rigor.,,,,

    Personally, for myself, after searching carefully for a proper foundation for Darwinian thought in science and finding none, it is obvious that Darwinism is false since it has no rigid foundation in science so as to test it and so as to demarcate it from a pseudo-science:

    Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science – Part II
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

    Quotes:

    Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
    Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse – Prominent Atheistic Philosopher
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....s-because/

    Darwin’s Frog Defies Evolution – July 5, 2013
    Excerpt: Lynn Margulis in an interview with Mazur pronounced,
    “neo-Darwinists are a… religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....evolution/

    Verse and Music:

    Matthew 7:24-27
    “Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock.
    And the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.
    And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand;
    and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

    Forest Xylophone Plays Bach
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2BWrmNhyXU

  3. 3
    Barb says:

    ScuzzaMan: Or you could just watch the debate and see for yourself. Is that too difficult for you?

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    It would be useful to see the alleged violations identified and classified, with supporting data and argument

    This sounds like one of those math courses in college where the professor says “the proof of the theorem is left to the students as a homework assignment.”

    Maybe we should give it to AVS as a homework assignment since he obviously knows more than any of us here.

  5. 5
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Thanks BA.

    Perhaps you missed my point? Certainly barb did. I dont need convincing that materialism is an atheist’s axiom and therefore cannot logically also serve as his conclusion. IOW, I dont need convincing of the illogic of the materialist / atheist pretense to scientific probity.

    My point was that, if we’re going to point out the innate character of the pretense, which is that they have a narrative structure into which all subsequent “facts” must be fitted, and that the facts are ALWAYS subsequent, i.e. the narrative comes first, always and ever, then we should be careful that as we point out the story-telling nature of their pretenses we dont simply recapitulate them ourselves.

    That would seem, to me, to be somewhat self-defeating, not to overlook hypocritical.

  6. 6
    Barb says:

    Thanks BA.

    Perhaps you missed my point? Certainly barb did.

    Really? Then why don’t you watch the video and post the list so the rest of us can look at it instead of getting self-righteous?

  7. 7
    JoeCoder says:

    I thought this blog post was pretty vapid.

    Dr. Hunter, I know you can do better. Rather than assuming everyone will trust your authority on the matter (which pretty much no critic will), why not put together a table with three columns: Erroneous quote from Velasco, time in minutes/seconds when it occurred, and explanation and sources showing why?

  8. 8
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Chill, barb.

    There’s nothing self-righteous in what I wrote. And since I am not the author of the original piece I dont feel at all compelled to complete it. Nor is the author compelled to take my advice.

    Reflexive hostility to dissent is unbecoming.

  9. 9
    Eric Anderson says:

    Dr. Hunter:

    I loved the description of all the errors:

    By our count Velasco issued 13 scientifically misleading or downright false statements, 18 bare assertions or circular statements, 5 just-so stories, 6 miscellaneous fallacies, and, of course at the top of the list, 21 non scientific, metaphysical claims. That is a total of 63 violations of science in a mere 42 minutes, for an astonishing rate of 1.5 hits per minute.

    Very funny, and I mean that. 🙂

    Must have been an excellent, and humorous, exercise for your students.

    I would appreciate seeing the list as well, though, just so we have some content behind the overall tally.

    Even if half of the items on the list are arguable or subject to interpretation, it would still be a pretty impressive list of failures in 42 minutes!

    This kind of thing is a great exercise for students. It could be done with lots of things: a chapter from one of Dawkins’ books, a website page from the NCSE, etc. Good exercise in critical thinking.

  10. 10
    Barb says:

    Chill, barb.

    There’s nothing self-righteous in what I wrote.

    Actually, there was, but continue being smug.

    And since I am not the author of the original piece I dont feel at all compelled to complete it. Nor is the author compelled to take my advice.

    So noted.

    Reflexive hostility to dissent is unbecoming.

    So is being an asshat.

  11. 11
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Barb,

    there’s nothing preventing you from taking your own advice and completing the work.

    However, if anyone other than the original author does that, my point stands; he will still have been bemoaning the fact that the atheists & materialists put narrative above the facts, while simply telling a story about them doing so.

    I maintain that this is a less than compelling proposition.

Leave a Reply