Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2016, 09:16 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
There's one thing I don't understand about the Laws of Thermodynamics...if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, how the hell are human souls supposed to work? Souls are being newly created with every human birth which goes against the Law of Thermodynamics. Explain to me how this is supposed to work.

One Christian I was arguing with said souls were human energy, to which I pointed to the Law of Thermodynamics and asked how were souls constantly being created which was adding more energy to the universe, how does that work? He changed his tune and said, well, souls were immaterial. To which I responded....If they're immaterial then how do you know they exist? Well, as you all know, it boiled down to magical thinking. Anyway, a god creating new soul really shouldn't work with Thermodynamics. Laugh out load Maybe they're recycled souls so nothing has to be created nor destroyed. Souls are wafting around the universe already made and god simply catches them and puts them inside humans. I donno....it's all so stupid.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 09:28 AM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
If for life to exist, there must be an eternal-life giving source, what about non-living organisms like viruses that have complex protein structures and coding DNA (or RNA). If he falls on the god made them to punish man, then god is a pretty nasty piece of work, you can also ask him why then did god create plant viruses. Oh those nasty plants needed to be punished also...

Ask your friend why a brilliant code-creator would make an organism in which 90% of it's genome would be non-coding (as in the Takigufu genome).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Iñigo's post
28-04-2016, 01:54 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 03:26 AM)Tamiptump Wrote:  2. Wow! What a dishonest argument! Biogenesis only refers to reproduction, NOT ORIGINS.

Actually, it does refer to origins. It just happens to be wrong in the context that your friend attempts to use it.

The idea that was once referred to as the law of biogenesis was developed by Pasteur, a pioneer of germ theory. It was a hypothesis reached by observing the behavior of bacteria, and seeing that they didn't just pop into existence of you kept a sample isolated. It stood in opposition to the idea of spontaneous generation, which said that bacteria literally just popped up wherever the fuck they wanted.

And, so far as the behavior of bacteria goes, this is perfectly true, and led to incredible advances in medicine. But observing that bacteria don't just blip into existence is a far cry from establishing that life cannot come from non-life, which is why the "law" of biogenesis is no longer called that.

(28-04-2016 03:26 AM)Tamiptump Wrote:  There is an entire other discipline called ABIOGENESIS that is the study of the origin of living material..... Lawrence Krauss (a renowned physicist) has provided some very good empirical support for life arising from non-living material, albeit this is a very fledgling endeavor.

Not so much fledgling, despite protests from religious types. We've known for a long time that life is just a matter of chemistry. Any arguments to the contrary have long since been shown to be baseless. The study of abiogenesis is not a question of if it happened, but how, because chemistry is a very complex field.

Even on that front, though, we've made great strides. As a starting point, you might look up the Miller-Urey experiment, which established that amino acids (the chemical building blocks of life) form naturally given circumstances very much like the ones that would have existed on early Earth.

(28-04-2016 03:26 AM)Tamiptump Wrote:  3. An "eternal, life-giving source"? How about Zeus?

Probably best not to open that can of worms. It doesn't actually challenge any of the arguments put forth. It just broadens the discussion to include the question of "which god?".

(28-04-2016 03:26 AM)Tamiptump Wrote:  4. DNA is NOT A CODE!!!

Well, it is. It just isn't in the way that the vast majority of people think of the word "code". And it does contain information.

The real issue here is that neither of these things actually necessitates an intelligent agency behind the creation of DNA. Information theory is actually a rather advanced field, and nowhere in it has anyone discovered even the barest hint of evidence for the idea that information can only arise from intelligent intervention. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The problem is that your target audience probably doesn't know about, doesn't care about, and wouldn't understand the principles of information theory.

"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, 03:21 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
[Image: Stoopid_zpsm31h5mmi.jpeg]

Fixed

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
28-04-2016, 03:23 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
I'm also fond of this one:

[Image: thor-jesus.gif]

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
28-04-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
Some great responses! I'm already learning a lot!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 03:32 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
Here's the one dear old mum who still prays for my sorry incorrigible soul 4 decades later posted to me. God bless her.

[Image: mom_1.jpg]

My response: "Did you get a degree in Cosmology and Evolutionary Biology when I wasn't looking?" End of conversation.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 04:23 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
These types of arguments are factually incorrect, Usually when someone says "Energy can't be created or destroyed." I will ask "What happened to the energy that was inside dead batteries?" A dead battery has to be charged at some point and some are even re-chargeable but once the energy is used up it will die and be thrown away. The energy that was first "created" inside of the battery dissipated after use.

The energy inside of humans is the same thing. Once a human runs out of energy because the parts of their body that creates energy such as their heart beating stops or if they starve to death because we need food for energy. There is no reason to believe the used up/spent energy inside of us continues to live on or "transform" after we die and even if it did there is no reason to believe that energy came from a divine source, is actually a "soul" that holds our memories and personalities, etc. You're still making a huge leap once you try to figure out where the "energy" comes from.

It can come from a lightening bolt hitting our planet billions of years ago, you don't need Yahweh for that, you just need our atmosphere or Thor, or whichever God you like if we're just going to guess. You can literally fill the blank with anyone or anything. So the burden of proof is still on them to decide who that was, by saying "Well, this old book says it was this God..." isn't an answer. There are thousands of creation myths humans have come up with over the years. there's no reason to assume this one is right just because a lot of people believe in it.

That's why whenever I debate a theist about their creation myth I always call their God the "all-powerful Wizard" because an all-powerful wizard would have no problem creating a universe, he is all-powerful after all. Even after that there is no reason to believe he cares about that universe or the life he created that exists in that universe. If they want to worship a wizard that's fine but they still need to prove that he exists in some tangible way or it's still faith.

[Image: ceb14eb08caf31c782a0dfaf4f8af0fd.jpg]

This is what they expect us to believe happened, and we're the stupid ones for trying to figure out the actual truth.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SitaSky's post
28-04-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
"energy cannot be created nor destroyed"

does not lead to "therefore an eternal agent must have created the energy that makes up our observable universe"

These two phrases would contradict each other. Regardless whether I am eternal or not, I still cannot create energy. They would need to do some special pleading. Well, my god is so powerful "He" isn't constrained by the laws of physics or logic or laws of non contradiction.


"Life can only come from life, non living matter cannot produce living matter"
This is a somewhat strange law, because of course, living matter IS made up of non living matter. We are all made of atoms. Atoms are non living matter. Atoms can combine to create compounds, proteins, cells, and organisms. We ARE biological machines made up of the building blocks of atoms.
Sure, that which we classify as life is made up of complex cell structures which already comes with a replication process.
What we know about evolution is that this is a gradual step wise process which takes a lot of time (measured in generations) in order to get from simple to complex. In other words, we don't get complex structures spontaneously sprouting from simple structures, for example a rock doesn't suddenly sprout a living, breathing frog. If you do see this happen, you ought to suspect that the frog was hiding inside the rock, rather than it having been spontaneously "miraculously", "randomly" formed.
So if we consider the evolutionary path (which doesn't necessarily cater to Abiogenesis) and extrapolate that idea towards pre-life structures we can speculate that in the early times atoms randomly combined to form compounds, some of those compounds were able to influence the formation of other compounds (improving the chances of certain compounds forming). At some point compounds formed were the same or similar to those compounds that formed them (hence replication of compound which have a high change of existing). At some point compounds with locomotion became more effective at replication that those without locomotion. At some point compounds with locomotion gained the ability to target a beneficial direction (perhaps traveling towards required raw materials). Over time we ended up with eyes, noses, ears etc and we classified such things as "living".


Item 3 is just ridiculous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 05:26 PM
RE: Help me dismantle the arguments on this meme.
(28-04-2016 04:23 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  These types of arguments are factually incorrect, Usually when someone says "Energy can't be created or destroyed." I will ask "What happened to the energy that was inside dead batteries?" A dead battery has to be charged at some point and some are even re-chargeable but once the energy is used up it will die and be thrown away. The energy that was first "created" inside of the battery dissipated after use.

Errr...

Actually, matter and energy really can't be created or destroyed. That's the First Law of Thermodynamics. We put energy into batteries and we take it out again. At no point is energy ever created or destroyed, just moved around. More simply, TNSTAAFL.

The argument is invalid because all it does is demonstrate that at some point the First Law didn't apply. That's hardly a shocker since we inferred the First Law from observations made within our universe. Having it not apply "outside" our universe comes as no surprise. Your average fundie wants to leap from there to God but there are an awful lot of unsupported suppositions across that chasm.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: