The 10 common arguements

[Escherwrotedabible]

Hey guys,

Im compiling a video and im currently doing research for it,
I have set out to make not the ten commandments but:

The 10 most common arguements (for intelligent design).

I realise that most of them wont be as much for intelligent design as against darwinism but...

Can u give me some of the ones you most commonly run into?

Heck u might even have a realy uncommen one but such a hillarious one u share anyways Thanx!

Ow the video is gonna state the ten arguements with some collages of video fragments on debunking those arguements, news footage etc.

thanks in advance.

EWDB

 

[Laurens]

You never see a bear giving birth to a pig (pick any two random animals)

Certainly the most stupid argument against evolution

 

[Zoten001]

Creotard: "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Me: :facepalm:

Yeah, this is one I come across often, that Evolution violates the second law, therefore life must have a designer.... yeesh...

 

[Aught3]

Some argument about information...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The two I get the most are:

Lucy was just a three-foot tall chimp/ape.

Or

All the hominin fossils we have are fully ape or fully human.

Another good one that I have not seen too much of but is still funny is:

If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are their still apes/monkeys?

 

[magicalpants]

'No new genetic information can be created', which is basically a failed attempt at poking a hole in speciation.

 

[Escherwrotedabible]

Some old ones here and some new ones, im inclined to label these under one family of arguements being :

"twisting facts and/or using misinformation"
"science can be used to disprove evolution"

So far i have come up with these major "arguements"

1. An atheists by definition can not posses moral

2. The unlikelyhood of events, (random chance)

3. The incapability of science to explain 'or the misunderstanding of "the origin of life"

4. The meaning and goal of life in the atheists finite vieuwpoint

5. "gaps" in darwins theory or the misrepresentation of findings

6. because the bible tells me so....yes laugh/facepalm/cry

7. U need to be reborn or touched by god to be able to see the truth

8. Linking atheism to bad moral behaviour in history, ie hitler/stalin

9. some of history's greatest minds where christians/catholics.

10. science can be used to disprove evolution


Id still like to groom and shape this list some more and i am very curious to hear what u guys think are some of the best arguemets you have heared
i know i know they probably all boil down to answering faith with faith, misinformation, flawd reasoning but stil...


Thanx again for helping out.

EWDB

 

[Cephei]

Creotard: "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

Me: :facepalm:

Yeah, this is one I come across often, that Evolution violates the second law, therefore life must have a designer.... yeesh...

:lol: Yeah, this one is hilarious.

They say it violates thermodynamics, and their solution to the problem? Violate it again!

 

[nemesiss]

don't forget about

the probablity aka "huge numbers" argument.
the personal "i don't give a shit about your opinion" experience argument
the "i've been told" aka the "i can't think for myself" argument
the hovind aka "i have no fucking clue what im talking about" argument
the "i believe" aka "i still can't think for myself" argument
the VFX aka "you're a tool of SATAN!!!" argument
the bible is sciencetific aka "eye kaand' reeet " argument
the cosmological aka "i like shiney things" argument

 

[Pulsar]

There are no transitional fossils.

All animals are fully formed. Where are the half-winged birds?

The likelihood of cells forming by chance is <insert random large number>

Present horizontal gene transfer as if it disproves evolution.

The eye/flagellum/... is too complex too have evolved from scratch.

Nobody has observed macro-evolution.

The appendix/... is not a vestigial organ.

Life can't come from non-life.

No new information is added from one generation to the next.

The Cambrian explosion!

 

[Mapp]

The key argument from intelligent design is first and foremost the anthropic principle which is essentially just a giant post facto argument from ignorance. You've heard it as, "the universe is so complex it couldn't have gotten here by chance." The added corallory is that, "and since neither you nor I can completely explain the origins of the universe, I get to assume that Magic Man dun' it."

 

[Escherwrotedabible]

Ive always been zo amazed by the actual arrogance of that statement,
Like we are the only succesfull outcome and all other possibilities would "flunk" the universe.

To use a creationists own methafor... shooting an arrow at a wall and painting a bullseye arround it.

 

[Lurking_Logic]

1. An atheists by definition can not posses moral

There is the second version of that argument that no morality can be explained without God
Perhaps appealing to innate moral principles or Objective morality

God is necessary for morality
so any atheist who acts morally is unknowingly following God

 

[TheFearmonger]

there could not have been a long period time on earth as the sun shrinks at 20 ft an hour. backwards calculation makes life on earth unlivable, so evolution is false

stuff about abiogensis

no trans. forms

 

[Daealis]

the probablity aka "huge numbers" argument.

But with this, you can do a fun little "huge number" crunch yourself. It's about as scientific, and shows that their "huge NUMBAHS" aren't really that huge after all.

The number of star in our galaxy? Estimated between 100 and 400 billion. Round it up to 200 billion for shits and giggles.

The Habitable zone around our star could contain about 3 planets. But considering that not all stars we've observed have any kind of planets, and some have several, assume roughly one carbon-based-life-friendly planet per star. That's 200 billion or 2* 10^11. To put this in any sort of perspective, the Lord of the Rings contains 2,8 million letters(the english version with appendix and all). If one star was a character in the pages, you would require 71 000 books to cover the start in our galaxy. Roughly 5 km of books.

The Deep Field of Hubble was a slice of starry heaven, 1 of 28 million similar sized pieces that make up the whole sky. You could see about 3000 galaxies in the image. Assume uniformity in the universe, meaning similar amounts of galaxies all around. Estimate that in average the galaxies would mount up to somewhat Milky Way sized galaxies, insert the amount of habitable planets and multiply byt the estimate of 3000 galaxies times 28 million to cover the whole known universe. This gets you a number roughly in the area of 1,7*10^22. To put this in Lord of the rings characters, you'd need so many books the line of hard cover versions would reach from the sun to Pluto. And back.

I've seen a creatard professor(in ICR I think) claiming that the chances of life coming about by sheer chance is 1* 10^21. Or it might've been that any life-form developped a fully formed eye by chance. Either way, if his calculations are correct, there is a 17 to one chance that there exists a planet where fully formed life just randomly popped into the existence.

Let's use their asshatted math against incredulity arguments, whee.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Don't forget the Watchmaker's Fallacy. That since watches are irreducibly complex and have creators, therefore so are bacteria and humans.

To put this in Lord of the rings characters, you'd need so many books the line of hard cover versions would reach from the sun to Pluto. And back.

We also call this unit of measurement 1 Metric Wheel of Time

 

[DeusExNihilum]

I'm sorry if these have been said already but 2 that I come across like sunrise and sunset is

1. Arguments involving the second law of Thermodynamics - I've come across people saying that The Big Bang violates the 2nd Law, that Abiogenesis violates the 2nd Law and that Evolution violates the 2nd Law. Yet EVERY time, without fail so far, they only ever quote part of the 2nd law; Forever missing out the phrase "In a closed system". :facepalm:

2. Microevolution/Macroevolution/Speciation has never been observed/Evolving in "Kinds" - I'm sure all of you have heard this at some point. I know I have.

 

[Helicobacter]

How about the classic "we have the same evidence, we just interpret it differently" and "common designer, not common ancestor"

 

[ExeFBM]

The two I hate most are the:-

1. Evolution can't account for morality/logic/conciousnness/meaning.

2. Evolution/atheism has to borrow from the christian world view in order to try and disprove it.

The second one annoys me more, but mostly because I detest the term 'world view'. To me it just implies rose tinted glasses.

 

[borrofburi]

2. Evolution/atheism has to borrow from the christian world view in order to try and disprove it.

The second one annoys me more, but mostly because I detest the term 'world view'. To me it just implies rose tinted glasses.

It mostly pisses me off because of the ego maniacal presumptuousness in claiming all of logic as based on your religion, or only tenable if your religion is true...