Chris Deconstructs the Dawkinites (Video)

Chris of Hoaxbusters Call provides an excellent example of how irrational and illogical the Dawkinites truly are. Having had this same debate hundreds of times, the ever-present pattern of ad hominems and countless other instances of informal fallacies are standard.  After a few enlightening conversations with the Afternoon Commute I decided Chris’ call to “Atheist Experience” was worth posting.  Chris’ deconstruction of their replies is top notch.  Their masters at the Royal Society even reveal to them their “science” is state propaganda.  -Jay
…that we put in our Science provided toaster ovens and pray for Darwin’s visage to appear.

Unedited Call: Atheist Experience #933
There weren’t any “A/V synch issues” during the live call or after when I pulled the original from their Youtube channel, just saying.

List of fallacies A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.

Lancet Editor Proclaims Half of All Scientific Studies are False

“It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t ‘peer-reviewed’ and doesn’t appear in a ‘credible’ medical journal, but as we can see, ‘peer-reviewed’ doesn’t really mean much anymore.”
“But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying `The paper looks all right to me’, which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare.”

Dr Phil Gingerich Interview About Rodhocetus–Xtcr8h7k

“Well, in fact, I really don’t debate. I appear with creationists at public events and on radio and television shows, and sometimes these appearances are called “debates,” but they are not formal debates about evolution of the sort that the Institute for Creation Research or Kent Hovind or the Veritas Forum constantly try to organize. I steer clear of such events, and, again, I recommend that my colleagues follow suit.” -Eugenie Scott

Human DNA Is Not A Document, It’s An App

Who is afraid of Peer review: Sting Operation of The Science: Some analysis of the metadata

Major publisher retracts 64 scientific papers in fake peer review outbreak

Junk DNA — Not So Useless After All 

20 Comments on Chris Deconstructs the Dawkinites (Video)

  1. Excellent show Chris. Thanks for posting.


  2. Great listen.

    This very topic was brought up this week on the Marc Maron podcast #635 with Bob Guccione Jr. this week. Very interesting. At the 25 minute mark. Right down to whether we’ve even proved gravity or not to the complete co-opting of science itself.

  3. Man as a physical being is subject to gravity and other laws of physics, not to mention chemical laws. As part of biological life, he is also subject to various biological laws. In particular, this includes the two scientific laws of neo-Darwinism (incorrectly called the “theory of evolution”). Darwin’s insight relied on these two principles.

    1. Variation refers to random changes.
    2. Selection refers a method to select or prefer certain changes over others.

    As such, that is not yet a scientific theory. For example, the eminent biologist Richard Dawkins created a thought experiment in which the phrase “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” could arise through random variations. First, there is a random variation of letters. Then a selection process will select the letters that most resemble the target phrase until eventually it is eventually reached. Unfortunately, this sneaks in two metaphysical principles:

    • Final cause: the selection principle is goal oriented.
    • Formal cause: the phrase is a possibility of manifestation. If, for example, the letter W was stuck on the typewriter, no amount of time could produce the phrase.

    A properly scientific theory, on the other hand, relies only on material and efficient causes. Hence, the following modifications define the biological theory.

    1. Genetic Variation refers to random mutations in the genotype that are inherited by the descendants.
    2. Natural Selection refers to the survival and reproductive success of the phenotype within its environment, thereby preserving those mutations.

    When I was a boy taking classes at the Boston Museum of Science, we were taught that cosmic rays created genetic mutations. Now it is accepted that the copying process itself is subject to imperfections. Interspecies mating may also possibly create genetic variations. Since most mutations are deleterious, presumably “nature” will select the best “fit” offspring to survive and reproduce, while the least fit will produce no descendants. The selection process is still in dispute, e.g., the role of group selection vs kin selection. Darwin claimed there was a sexual selection, which we see in the tendency toward assortative mating, especially in humans. Of course, there is artificial selection in which humans create various breeds of certain animals for designed purposes.

    As such, there is nothing objectionable to neo-Darwinism, since variations and selection can be observed. However, there are four things that this theory does not account for, although the popular imagination often believes so.

    • Completeness: variation and selection do not account for all the features of the phenotype. Specifically, the process does not explain how consciousness, thought, etc., arise. It just doesn’t, no matter what you hear. A scientific theory needs to explain all the steps involved.
    • Descent: man, for example, does not descend from a “monkey”. No biologist claims that a monkey gave birth to a human. A true descendent will contain the genetic material of the parents. A new species arises, according to the theory, when the variation is sufficiently large to be considered something different; i.e., it is not a descendent in that sense.
    • Complexity: the theory does not explain emerging complexity, or in other words, there is no “direction” to evolution, even if it appears that way. There is no good definition for complexity, and “evolution” could just as randomly produce less complex beings. Actually, half the biomass is single-celled organisms and they will continue to exist when multicellular organisms become extinct. Neo-darwinism may offer an explanation for the possibility of the development of more complex life forms, but not an explanation for its necessity.
    • Eugenics vs fitness: there is no “moral” basis to survival. “Fit” just means fit to survive. “Bigger, stronger, faster” are irrelevant. Certain life forms will survive better as the human population density increases. For example, rats thrive in human cities. Social parasites like dogs and housecats do so likewise. There is a tacit agreement with livestock and poultry that they will be allowed to breed and propagate their genes in return for becoming foodstuff for humans.

  4. In “The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship” the Collins brothers convincingly argue that the theory of evolution comes out of Freemasonry as a way to promulgate the occult doctrine of “becoming” among the unenlightened masses.

  5. Crimson pilled // December 22, 2015 at 6:54 am // Reply

    Perhaps another caller could ask them if they also buy into race / IQ if they subscribe to Evolution, and if not, why they reject it.

  6. A good example of evolution for a doubting Thomas would be the Atlantic tomcod that has evolved to survive in the heavily polluted hudson river. Or even rats that have become immune to poison and which are bigger because of the fatty junk food thrown in the streets by slobs. And there are fish that can walk! I suppose Chris from hoaxbuster’s call would say the Australian walking perch is only ‘claiming’ it can survive up to six days on dry land.

    • None of that proves the transformism of one species to another. You’re just presuming those are examples of transitions, when that is the thing in question. Chris and myself would say the walking fish is a specific species. Chris and myself and most creationists and humans prior to Darwin, believe in adaptation – that is micro evolution – what is the point of contention is species transforming into another species, which is without any scientific or empirical basis.

      • adam walsh // February 23, 2016 at 4:18 pm //

        If we cannot observe change over a long,long period of time, then does that mean that change did not happen? We obviously cannot watch a monkey turning into a man or a walking fish turning into an amphibian, it takes a very, very long time. What everyone seems to agree on is small changes or micro-evolution. If micro-evolution happens over a long, long period of time then the species can change into another. Very slowly and gradually. If creationists claim that there is no species change then what is the mechanism that stops one species micro-evolving into another? Change is agreed upon in small time scales but thrown out when we talk about change over millions of years. Were 8.7 species just ‘put’ on earth by a god that saw fit to give them the ability to adapt to environmental changes? Or did they spring from a single celled organism, becoming more complex life forms over a long period of time through natural selection? Common sense tells me to choose the latter. But this is a circular argument, simply because no-one saw the monkey become the man, and a kind of hollow victory for the creationists, whose theory of origin is based on blind faith, or belief without proof.

      • If you can’t observe it then by definition it’s not empirical. Micro evolution occurring over a long period is not a transition of species, and to just assert it as Darwinian theory does is the very thing in question. Where are all the skeletal remains of these transitions? We should be buried in mountains of billions of them. Further, what the evolutionary advantage of 1/8 of an eye? 1/7 of a leg? Most of those appendages in process would actually be detrimental to a species! Lol it’s a preposterous modern myth – the new scientistic religiosity

      • Also, “complexity” is merely an interpretive scheme in your mind that it not objectively in reality if scientism and Darwinian theory are correct.

  7. We are not buried in mountains of skeletons because bone breaks down when exposed to the elements. They even break down in some acidic soils. Depends on the environment the animal died in. Buried bones become fossils through diagenesis, the process that turns bone into stone.
    And there are plenty of transitional fossils.
    Every organism is fully adapted to it’s environment all the time. There are no half-evolved organisms. Not 1/8 of an eye. Its the organisms eye for the time and place in which in it lives. It’s not sat there going: ‘I really wish i had a full eye.’ When the environment becomes unstable that is when natural selection occurs. So if micro-evolution over long periods of time does not cause species change, where did all these species come from? When we throw out the fossil record, comparative anatomy, dna comparisons and the theory of evolution in general we are left with a ‘big bang’ of animal species prowling the earth all at the same time,(what about dinosaurs? forget about them) as they cannot evolve from one species into another. This would be the new theory. And that theory would be immediately shot down as there is no empirical evidence to show it happened. No-one saw it happen. Without the inductive reasoning used in evolution theory to paint a picture of the tree of life, there is just a natural history filled with mystery and speculation.

    • What I mean is we should be surrounded by examples of transitions and we are not. No, there are no transitions, and what you think are transitions are frauds (as many have been exposed as such). Tiktaalik is not real – it’s an interpretation of bones.

      Even Darwinian theory does not say every organism is fully adapted to its environment at all times – my point is that you have to admit the eye took millions of years to form, yet what is the evolutionary advantage of 1/8 of an eye – which would have had to have been the case for millennia of creatures in process towards a full eye. It’s retarded lol

    • Apparently you have not studied philosophy. The point about not seeing it is because the Darwinian theorist is almost always a rank empiricist and a materialist. Empiricism and materialism are so absurd and contradictory at the outset, it’s amazing it’s so widely held.

      You realize that is those two things are true, they cancel each other out? Your “mind” is merely a determined chemical process and not real – you have no consciousness, therefore your arguments are not made by a rational mind but are the result of meaningless chemical reactions. Lol. Get out of here with that mess.

  8. No, I have not studied philosophy. As you said in the Mystery Babylon video, i’m just some dude. I have no interest in defending Neil Tyson or Richard Dawkins. I’m merely trying to get to bottom of what you actually think happened at the beginning of life on earth. How do we come to have so many species of life? If micro-evolution is agreed upon then presumably cats and dogs have no common ancestor and just appeared as different looking cats and dogs, not a tree dwelling animal called a Dormaalocyon latouri. If you are a creationist and believe that god made life, so be it. If you are an atheist, then the answer will be interesting.
    The evolutionary advantage of having 1/8 of an eye would be that it is better than having no eye whatsoever. Lots of animals failed to develop what they needed to survive and went extinct.
    If consciousness is not a product of the physical brain and is a separate mind or soul then how do you explain brain damage? A small amount can change an individuals personality quite radically.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The policy themes of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World – Part 4 – Censorship, Scientism, Fraud and Evolutionary Mysticism – Power & Reality
  2. Policy themes of Brave New World – Censorship, Scientism, Fraud and Evolutionary Mysticism – Canadian Liberty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: