I am so sick and tired of addressing these same arguments over and over again in these debates, so I am just going to list them out in no particular order so I can just link this thread whenever they come up again.
1. Anything that compares living organisms with objects humans create: This argument type is invalid due to the differences between how living things function and how machines function, as well as the materials from which they are derived. These differences make it unacceptable to assume that the origin of one must match the origin of the other, as the chemistry behind them is not identical. Any hypothetical scenario that asserts that in the context of the scenario, there are no differences, doesn't reflect reality. In reality, these things are different from each other, and your hypothetical scenario does not change that.
2. Unintentionally off topic issues: The theory of evolution covers the mechanism by which populations of organisms change over time and generations. No more and no less. The Big Bang and the origin of the universe are not relevant topics to these debates. The origin of life itself and abiogenesis are not relevant topics to these debates, as evolution only starts after life exists and has nothing to due with the origin of it. Morality has nothing to do with evolution, and any influence you might think it has on morality is not something the theory aims to have. It is a flaw in people, not science.
3. The "look around you" argument: Good for you that you think that the beauty of the sunset is evidence for the existence of a deity. Don't expect your subjective opinion to be particularly convincing to anyone else. There are plenty of things that can appear to be one thing, and yet are another thing, so just your personal perspective on the world with no objective evidence behind it is not reliable.
4. All special pleading: Statements such as "god exists beyond the universe, not within it" are weak attempts to avoid the burden of proof. You might cherish your beliefs, but they are not excluded from having to meet basic standards of evidence. If you have to resort to special pleading, you are essentially admitting that you have no evidence to actually bring to the debate, and you want people to think your position is valid anyways. Too bad for you, this subforum isn't an echo chamber, so you aren't going to get away with that.
5. Stereotypes pertaining to atheists: Saying that "atheists must hate god" or "atheists just want to sin" and other such statements just tells me that you haven't interacted with many atheists. That's legitimately the only way a person could think the majority of atheist stereotypes are accurate. The only thing all atheists share in common is a LACK of belief in deities and nothing else. As a result, atheists on the whole have less similarity between each other than pretty much any other way you could group people; I wouldn't be shocked if atheists are about as "similar" to each other as all the people that feel neutral about the color red.
6. God of the gaps: Gaps in our current knowledge about the universe, etc., don't automatically get to be filled up by deities by virtue of being currently unknown. Plenty of things we didn't know previously and were often filled by "the god of the gaps" turned out to have no observable relationship with any deities whatsoever. Unless there is actual evidence for a deity's involvement in a process, there is no legitimate reason to assert a deity must be involved.
7. Quote mines: If you see one or two sentences in which "an evolutionist admits that evolution is impossible" or some other such thing, do yourself a favor and at least try to find the original source for the quote. I swear, quoting people out of context is bad enough, but it seems like half of all quote mines aren't even sentences the people attributed to them said or wrote.
8. I'll name some evil "atheists": -_- are you really going to go there? Not all theists are saints, you know. No one becomes an evil dictator because they are an atheist, because atheism doesn't have any tenants or guidelines upon which to shape a person's morality or actions. There's no rallying point for atheism. Also, if applicable to the person I am directing this to, stop bringing up Hitler. The guy claimed to be Catholic, and since he is dead, we only have that to go on, so it is not your place to assert that this particular person you view as vile couldn't possibly share anything in common with you. I don't know why people bring up Hitler so much when Stalin (who was arguably equally evil) was openly an atheist. In any case, unless you want your religion held accountable for every single bad person that happened to share it with you, shut up about any evil atheists.
9. My argument is logic, and logic is better than science: This is the hierarchy of learning about the world, from best to worst, as a short list:
1. Math- math can prove a conclusion is correct indisputably. 4+4=8, and the answer will always be 8.
2. Science- science can utilize evidence to discern the most likely conclusion to represent reality, approaching the 100% certainty of proof but never quite reaching it. In other words, scientific conclusions can have a level of certainty well above 99%, but never 100%.
3. Logic- logic uses basic rules of argumentation to defend a position or attack one. However, none of the conclusions made through logic alone are really conclusive. It is reserved for questions which are too subjective for science to handle, such as "is it moral to kill my neighbor if they try to steal my family pet?" However, the answer obtained through logic will never be considered objectively correct, or even necessarily to be the most likely to be correct. Correct doesn't really apply to subjective situations.
In summary, any position without evidence to support it will always be crushed by positions that do have evidence, and anyone trying to argue for their position purely by logic when they could be using evidence is doing a disservice to themselves.
10. Microevolution happens, but macroevolution doesn't: For one thing, these are generally not recognized as official terms in the scientific community, because their exact meaning is uncertain (they are a translation of made up terms by some guy a long time ago, and he didn't make their meaning especially clear). Most people view microevolution as "small change" and macroevolution as "big change". However, since the mechanism of change is the same for both, it wouldn't make sense for one to occur and not the other. To make things especially murky, small changes in DNA can result in drastic changes in one's body, and large amounts of change in DNA can result in very minor or practically no difference; it all just depends on the type of mutation and what genes it affects. Since there is no mechanism which prevents changes from building up over time, as well as the other things I have mentioned, arguing that microevolution happens and macroevolution doesn't is invalid.
11. Evolution isn't valid because the fossil record is incomplete: Fossils aren't the strongest evidence for evolution, to the point that literally none could have been discovered and the theory would still stand strong. Heck, the theory wasn't even originally based off of fossils, but rather in observations of living populations of organisms (Darwin had little to say in regards to fossils). Fossils aren't "evolution's weak link", they are the fancy cane evolution likes to twirl around to show off.
I'll probably add more as I think of more and have the time.
1. Anything that compares living organisms with objects humans create: This argument type is invalid due to the differences between how living things function and how machines function, as well as the materials from which they are derived. These differences make it unacceptable to assume that the origin of one must match the origin of the other, as the chemistry behind them is not identical. Any hypothetical scenario that asserts that in the context of the scenario, there are no differences, doesn't reflect reality. In reality, these things are different from each other, and your hypothetical scenario does not change that.
2. Unintentionally off topic issues: The theory of evolution covers the mechanism by which populations of organisms change over time and generations. No more and no less. The Big Bang and the origin of the universe are not relevant topics to these debates. The origin of life itself and abiogenesis are not relevant topics to these debates, as evolution only starts after life exists and has nothing to due with the origin of it. Morality has nothing to do with evolution, and any influence you might think it has on morality is not something the theory aims to have. It is a flaw in people, not science.
3. The "look around you" argument: Good for you that you think that the beauty of the sunset is evidence for the existence of a deity. Don't expect your subjective opinion to be particularly convincing to anyone else. There are plenty of things that can appear to be one thing, and yet are another thing, so just your personal perspective on the world with no objective evidence behind it is not reliable.
4. All special pleading: Statements such as "god exists beyond the universe, not within it" are weak attempts to avoid the burden of proof. You might cherish your beliefs, but they are not excluded from having to meet basic standards of evidence. If you have to resort to special pleading, you are essentially admitting that you have no evidence to actually bring to the debate, and you want people to think your position is valid anyways. Too bad for you, this subforum isn't an echo chamber, so you aren't going to get away with that.
5. Stereotypes pertaining to atheists: Saying that "atheists must hate god" or "atheists just want to sin" and other such statements just tells me that you haven't interacted with many atheists. That's legitimately the only way a person could think the majority of atheist stereotypes are accurate. The only thing all atheists share in common is a LACK of belief in deities and nothing else. As a result, atheists on the whole have less similarity between each other than pretty much any other way you could group people; I wouldn't be shocked if atheists are about as "similar" to each other as all the people that feel neutral about the color red.
6. God of the gaps: Gaps in our current knowledge about the universe, etc., don't automatically get to be filled up by deities by virtue of being currently unknown. Plenty of things we didn't know previously and were often filled by "the god of the gaps" turned out to have no observable relationship with any deities whatsoever. Unless there is actual evidence for a deity's involvement in a process, there is no legitimate reason to assert a deity must be involved.
7. Quote mines: If you see one or two sentences in which "an evolutionist admits that evolution is impossible" or some other such thing, do yourself a favor and at least try to find the original source for the quote. I swear, quoting people out of context is bad enough, but it seems like half of all quote mines aren't even sentences the people attributed to them said or wrote.
8. I'll name some evil "atheists": -_- are you really going to go there? Not all theists are saints, you know. No one becomes an evil dictator because they are an atheist, because atheism doesn't have any tenants or guidelines upon which to shape a person's morality or actions. There's no rallying point for atheism. Also, if applicable to the person I am directing this to, stop bringing up Hitler. The guy claimed to be Catholic, and since he is dead, we only have that to go on, so it is not your place to assert that this particular person you view as vile couldn't possibly share anything in common with you. I don't know why people bring up Hitler so much when Stalin (who was arguably equally evil) was openly an atheist. In any case, unless you want your religion held accountable for every single bad person that happened to share it with you, shut up about any evil atheists.
9. My argument is logic, and logic is better than science: This is the hierarchy of learning about the world, from best to worst, as a short list:
1. Math- math can prove a conclusion is correct indisputably. 4+4=8, and the answer will always be 8.
2. Science- science can utilize evidence to discern the most likely conclusion to represent reality, approaching the 100% certainty of proof but never quite reaching it. In other words, scientific conclusions can have a level of certainty well above 99%, but never 100%.
3. Logic- logic uses basic rules of argumentation to defend a position or attack one. However, none of the conclusions made through logic alone are really conclusive. It is reserved for questions which are too subjective for science to handle, such as "is it moral to kill my neighbor if they try to steal my family pet?" However, the answer obtained through logic will never be considered objectively correct, or even necessarily to be the most likely to be correct. Correct doesn't really apply to subjective situations.
In summary, any position without evidence to support it will always be crushed by positions that do have evidence, and anyone trying to argue for their position purely by logic when they could be using evidence is doing a disservice to themselves.
10. Microevolution happens, but macroevolution doesn't: For one thing, these are generally not recognized as official terms in the scientific community, because their exact meaning is uncertain (they are a translation of made up terms by some guy a long time ago, and he didn't make their meaning especially clear). Most people view microevolution as "small change" and macroevolution as "big change". However, since the mechanism of change is the same for both, it wouldn't make sense for one to occur and not the other. To make things especially murky, small changes in DNA can result in drastic changes in one's body, and large amounts of change in DNA can result in very minor or practically no difference; it all just depends on the type of mutation and what genes it affects. Since there is no mechanism which prevents changes from building up over time, as well as the other things I have mentioned, arguing that microevolution happens and macroevolution doesn't is invalid.
11. Evolution isn't valid because the fossil record is incomplete: Fossils aren't the strongest evidence for evolution, to the point that literally none could have been discovered and the theory would still stand strong. Heck, the theory wasn't even originally based off of fossils, but rather in observations of living populations of organisms (Darwin had little to say in regards to fossils). Fossils aren't "evolution's weak link", they are the fancy cane evolution likes to twirl around to show off.
I'll probably add more as I think of more and have the time.
Last edited:
