Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2016, 11:05 PM
Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
I have a stubborn Christian friend who won't quit sending me these memes. I need the help of some of the more knowledgable people here to help me destroy these arguments.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 11:41 PM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2016 12:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
1 - We don't know if the universe is a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics appear to work in our universe, but would they be applicable before the universe started, if indeed it did have a start or creation? No one can say, and to assume otherwise is nothing more than an unfounded assertions. So the first point utterly misses the point and is based upon a misinformed and incomplete understanding of thermodynamics, cosmology, and physics. Also, even if we were to either assume or find evidence in favor of creation, that still doesn't get you to a god. Creation by an advanced alien race is still more probable than divine intervention, because advanced technology doesn't require the supernatural; something we've still never seen evidence for.



2 - Complete misunderstanding of science once again. That law, coined by Louis Pasteur, is...

"the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

This was at a time before our current understanding of genetics and the chemical bases of all life. All current life that we see does stem from previous life (in contrast to spontaneous generation, which posited that maggots were created out of the rancid meat you found them in), and so far as we know, abiogenesis no longer occurs. Nor should we expect to see it, as any proto-life that might form would be instantly out competed by the life that already exists. But even their 'life giving source' is an abrogation that falls outside of the boundaries of the law. If such a force existed, and we could demonstrably test it and verify it, then we'd have evidence for the 'creation' of life. But we never see that. Not once have we ever observed 'divine creation', and thus why the law doesn't include such a caveat. A human created out of dust, mud, or blood (as the Abrahamic faiths would have us believe) would violate this law, not be supported by it.



3 - Nope. 'Code' is a term that helps to explain it to a layman audience, but that doesn't mean that DNA is the biological equivalent of C++ or Java. Complex ordered systems arise out of chaos of nature all of the time, just look at snowflakes, mineral crystals, mollusk shells, and other natural fractals. Unless of course he wants to posit the existence of intelligent ice crystal making fairies that go around forming all of the snowflakes and sneaking into our freezers to get to work on our ice cube trays. There is nothing supernatural about the formation of polypeptide bonds, phospolipid bilayers, or nucleic acids. If one doesn't understand these things, it's not because they're inexplicable, it's because the person hasn't actually bothered to study the subject. We don't need a god to explain the formation of DNA/RNA or how they work, it's all just really advanced physics and chemistry.

Ignorance on the subject is not evidence for the divine.


But I do agree with the last line, such ignorance is alarming and offensive. Too bad they probably don't understand irony either. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 17 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-04-2016, 12:08 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
There is nothing to dismantle in this meme. Whoever wrote this think that space wizard exist so he twisted "arguments" to make them support conclusion he had chosen beforehand.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
28-04-2016, 12:19 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(27-04-2016 11:41 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  1 - We don't know if the universe is a closed system. The laws of thermodynamics appear to work in our universe, but would they be applicable before the universe started, if indeed it did have a start or creation? No one can say, and to assume otherwise is nothing more than an unfounded assertions. So the first point utterly misses the point and is based upon a misinformed and incomplete understanding of thermodynamics, cosmology, and physics. Also, even if we were to either assume or find evidence in favor of creation, that still doesn't get you to a god. Creation by an advanced alien race is still more probable than divine intervention, because advanced technology doesn't require the supernatural; something we've still never seen evidence for.



2 - Complete misunderstanding of science once again. That law, coined by Louis Pasteur, is...

"the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

This was at a time before our current understanding of genetics and the chemical bases of all life. All current life that we see does stem from previous life (in contrast to spontaneous generation, which posited that maggots were created out of the rancid meat you found them in), and so far as we know, abiogenesis no longer occurs. Nor should we expect to see it, as any proto-life that might form would be instantly out competed by the life that already exists. But even their 'life giving source' is an abrogation that falls outside of the boundaries of the law. If such a force existed, and we could demonstrably test it and verify it, then we'd have evidence for the 'creation' of life. But we never see that. Not once have we ever observed 'divine creation', and thus why the law doesn't include such a caveat. A human created out of dust, mud, or blood (as the Abrahamic faiths would have us believe) would violate this law, not be supported by it.



3 - Nope. 'Code' is a term that helps to explain it to a layman audience, but that doesn't mean that DNA is the biological equivalent of C++ or Java. Complex ordered systems arise out of chaos of nature all of the time, just look at snowflakes, mineral crystals, mollusk shells, and other natural fractals. Unless of course he wants to posit the existence of intelligent ice crystal making fairies that go around forming all of the snowflakes and sneaking into our freezers to get to work on our ice cube trays. There is nothing supernatural about the formation of polypeptide bonds, phospolipid bilayers, or nucleic acids. If one doesn't understand these things, it's not because they're inexplicable, it's because the person hasn't actually bothered to study the subject. We don't need a god to explain the formation of DNA/RNA or how they work, it's all just really advanced physics and chemistry.

Ignorance on the subject is not evidence for the divine.


But I do agree with the last line, such ignorance is alarming and offensive. Too bad they probably don't understand irony either. Drinking Beverage

The only things I have to add to this is that he has no basis for conflating the supposed sources of 1, 2, and 3 (already flawed in argument) into a single being, and apparently pulled "rational", "infinite", and "supreme" out of his ass without even a hint of attempting to rationalize them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
28-04-2016, 12:30 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
Someone just give me something cleaver to say to him so he will fuck off. I'm terrible with formulating good arguments.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 12:48 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 12:32 AM)Tamiptump Wrote:  Sorry. Double post.

I'll admit, that saying something cleaver is a good way to cut the guy off.

[Image: generic+meat+cleaver+generic.jpg]

.... sorry, I don't normally jump on spelling errors, just couldn't resist the joke in this case.

As for something CLEVER? A witty riposte, I would guess (and it's definitely a guess with me not knowing him) is more likely to engage than to silence him, especially if he thinks it's something out of character for you that you won't be able to keep doing well for any length of time.

Instead, consider upping the stakes and making it clear that bullshit filler spam arguments carry consequences. Something along these lines (feel free to paraphrase or adapt to your own purposes):

"Okay, I see that you're bearing witness to me. I'm going to take this argument to some people who know science better than me and see if the science parts are legit. If so, the logic will be worth examining, and I'll take it to people who are better than at logic than me. If either the science or logic are inaccurate, then I will know that you have been bearing a FALSE witness to me. I will know that you're not a reliable source on religious matters and I should ignore you on the subject. Those are the stakes when you send stuff like this to me. Good arguments might persuade me to your position, but bad arguments simply show that you have no good reasons for holding your position and reflect poorly on you.

"Alternatively, if the meme is bad, I will give you the opportunity to fact-check what you just sent me, really think hard and verify how true it is, and then withdraw it and apologize if it isn't accurate or logical. If you do this, and promise to be more careful to verify the quality and accuracy of the religious memes you send me in the future, then I will give them fair hearing and scrutiny that you seem to think they deserve.

"Also, if the meme is inaccurate, I will consider spamming your inbox with atheist memes. Turnabout is fair play, after all, and as a good Christian the way you are treating me is clearly the way you wish to be treated yourself."

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
28-04-2016, 01:07 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 12:30 AM)Tamiptump Wrote:  Someone just give me something cleaver to say to him so he will fuck off. I'm terrible with formulating good arguments.

The entire meme is a 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. He assumed his god, and went about trying to cram his god into everything he quite evidently doesn't understand. It is all post hoc rationalization. Ignorance is, once again, not evidence for the divine.

Tell him that the meme's argument works just as well, and is equally logically invalid, as 'evidence' for technologically advanced aliens from outer space. Ask him why he thinks his god is a better answer than aliens, and point out the fact that a supernatural deity is less probable than advanced technology; because attributing all of this to space aliens doesn't carry the additional baggage of assuming the existence of the supernatural.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 01:45 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(27-04-2016 11:05 PM)Tamiptump Wrote:  I have a stubborn Christian friend who won't quit sending me these memes. I need the help of some of the more knowledgable people here to help me destroy these arguments.

The laws of thermodynamics can only be shown to apply within the universe. Before the universe existed, they did not necessarily apply. Any argument to the contrary is baseless speculation at best.

There is no law of biogenesis.

The DNA-as-code idiocy is a staple of creationist arguments and relies on equivocation between the technical definition of code and the colloquial, as well as a failure to differentiate between human models of DNA and the DNA itself. DNA is just chemicals. Chemicals will always react in a certain way. Put them together in the proper order and you have DNA.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
28-04-2016, 02:02 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
1) Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Which would mean that the universe has always existed. Why is an eternal universe any less plausible than an eternal creator?

2) Define life. At what point is something either alive or not alive?

3) Equivocation of what code means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
28-04-2016, 02:05 AM (This post was last modified: 28-04-2016 02:13 AM by Ace.)
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
I'll use it against itself

1. we don't know if the universe can be considered a closed or open system, heck we don't even know what the universe was like before the bigbang let alone what exists outside our universe, any conclusions we draw are simply a wild guess at best and most of the time its wrong and inapplicable...... we simply don't have enough data to work with and anyone claim that they do know is either lying to everyone and themselves or is a complete retard

2. Biogenesis refers to reproductions
Abiogenesis refers to life coming from non-life.... life in its most basic and simplest understanding is just chemistry

also an "eternal, life giving source" ?
how do you define it and how will you prove this thing even exists ? what observations can we make ? what experiments can be done to prove it ? what predictions does your experiment make?

3. scientists use familiar sounding words as comparisons because laypeople don't know any better and would be confused easily if scientists used the standard jargon
by code they mean that DNA strands are made of proteins and other stuff that have a sequence that looks similar to a computer code.... and to make things more embarrassing we use computers to analyses DNA, after analyzing it the computer displays the results in a manner where the DNA looks very similar to a code

time to add insult to injury,
a syringe needle was built by someone for the purpose of injecting some kind of liquid
the fangs of a snake, spider, the stinger of a scorpion, bees and ants also function in the same way, they inject venom into their target

their logic works both ways:
1)a syringe was made my someone and since fangs and stingers serve a similar purpose they must also be made by someone
2) fans and stingers were not made by anyone.... a syringe serves the exact same purpose so they too were not made by someone

notice how both these deductions hold the same amount of validity.... wit the same logic I proved that syringes are not man-made
the only reason anyone picks the first one is because it aligns with their deeply held per-conceived world view which they can't bringing themselves to admit could be false even if the evidence bitch slaps them in the face with a shovel

time to go further
energy cant' be created or destroyed.... ok that means the universe always existed but lets be honest creationists wouldn't like this since that would mean god would be irreverent in the universe's origin
and if god always existed and doesn't need someone to create him then why can't the universe be the same in that regard ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: