• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bad Apologetics

UnrepentantSinner

A post by Alan Smithee
Joined
Aug 26, 2001
Messages
26,984
Location
Dallas, Texas
I realize I’m travelling a well-worn road, but I thought I’d just toss up a few bad apologies and see if anyone wants to discuss them.

1. Archaeology confirms the Bible.

First, let’s just state unequivocally that the first chapter of Genesis is in no way supported by biology, geology, paleontology or archaeology. Second, I don’t really see the value of this apologetic, as what archaeological finds have supported the Bible are claims of a mundane nature. So what? It’s fallacious to extrapolate from the fact that a non-supernatural claim finds support to the assertion that if they are true; the supernatural claims must be true as well.

My usual response to such claims is to ask the apologist if they have ever heard of Heinrich Schliemann. Most times they haven’t so I tell them that Schliemann used a copy of the Iliad to find the supposedly legendary city of Troy. Archaeology confirms the Iliad, ergo, we must conclude that Apollo and Aphrodite exist and that Achilles was invulnerable save his heel after being dipped in the river Styx. For some reason they scoff at my assertion. :rolleyes:

2. In 1963 the Supreme Court outlawed school prayer and America has gone to hell ever since.

Ignoring the mythology of an America where every schoolchild joined their palms and bowed their heads to start each day (you can find that at Americans United ) let’s look at the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

For starters, if we’re setting dates for when America started going to hell, let’s look at the very next year – when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. As Trent Lott so insightfully pointed out, we’d have a lot fewer social ills if this bill had never been passed. I think if we’re going to say that any particular event in the early 60s is leading to America’s folly, it would be this one.

What else happened in 1963? President Kennedy was killed. The societal woes of today are the result of a downward trend started after his assassination? JFK would have provided the nation with the vision and leadership to where instead of it just being a commercial a few years later, we all would have been standing on a grassy hilltop singing about giving Cokes to each other.

Hmmm, what else in 1963 or that era could have had an effect to America’s detriment. Involvement in VietNam was beginning, a war that would rip the country asunder for 10 more years of involvement and it would not be until the opening (and travels nation wide of a smaller version) of the VietNam Veteran’s Memorial until the healing would fully begin. American’s were leaving their porches as coming inside as both television and air conditioning become more prevalent – trends that continue to this day.

It is simplistic to say that America has gone “downhill” since 1963 and Abbington vs. Shemp was the sole cause. There are a myriad of factors that have caused social changes including television, the Internet and the urbanization (and sub-urbanization) of our population in addition to the only slightly sarcastically listed ones above. America has changed, for the better and for the worse and will continue to do so regardless of any single Supreme Court decision.

- more to follow
 
3. Can you see the air?

This one’s just awful. It’s much worse than it’s philosophical conjoined cousin “Can you see love?” (which I’ll address next), because the apologist doesn’t realize how ignorant they sound when they say it… apparently. The premise of “Can you see the air?” is faulty from the start, being based on the “just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there” argument from ignorance. From there it gets worse.

First off, you can see the air. The reason we see things is light bounces off an object and hits our retinas. The reason the sky is blue? Light hits air, bounces off it and the blue light hits our retinas. Occam’s razor anyone?

We can also see the movement of air if it has particles or water vapor suspended in it. We can see it’s influence on our weather patterns and predict weather to a fair degree of certainty. We can determine it’s composition, be it atmosphere or pure oxygen. We can trap it in a canister to use as we wish. We can determine its pressure, volume and temperature. And finally, if you really need to “see” the air, we can cool it until it liquefies or even solidifies with the possible exception of hydrogen. The apologist can hold a nice 5 pound block of air in their hands.

Can you see the air, apart from it’s underlying weakness crumbles like a stale cookie under a sledgehammer upon further analysis. The simple fact is all the things I’ve mentioned we can do to perceive, analyze or utilize air cannot be done with any transcendental concept of deity.

4. Can you see love?

Similar in premise to “can you see the air?” this apologetic is slightly stronger in that it uses the abstraction of emotion instead of something physical like the atmosphere. But it’s only stronger in the way toilet paper is stronger than crepe paper. The apologist doesn’t realize that they could just as easily ask, “can you see justice?” or “can you see liberty?” Both are non-sense, because social and political ideals are, just like emotions, abstract concepts.

Love is clearly a universal emotion and there’s a dictionary definition of it (basically the mental and physical sensations one being feels for another being it cares about) but in the end you’re only left with manifestations of the emotion placing it further up the ladder of abstract subjectivity. Take for example a father loving his child. One father might feel he’s showing love by being a stern disciplinarian so the child might grow up to be an orderly productive member of society. Another father feels he’s showing love by being easy going and not stifling his child’s creativity. Which one is “love?” They both are obviously, just two differing ways of showing it.

The syllogism Love cannot be seen – love exists – God cannot be seen – God exists falls flat.
 
I don’t know if this one belongs in Science or here, but it is about a bad apologetic.

verbatim from a different message board
5. In any case, evolution is not science... it's just a theory. Science is study, not theory. Science makes theories, not the other way around...

- Theories are not guesses or something people pulled out of their asses as the sentiment "just a theory" tries to connote.

- Evolutionary theory is based on scientific observations. And improved upon with further scientific observations. Observations = study.

- Evolution wasn't dreamed up by Darwin one day in the summer of 1857, it was based on previous science (observations) that had gone on before him, as well as his observations on the HMS Beagle voyage.

- Science is all about theories...
From the amicus curiae brief... Edwards v. Aguillard

The Act's unconstitutional purpose is also evident in its requirement that both "creation-science" and "evolution-science" be taught as "theory" and not as "proven scientific fact." To a scientist or a science educator, the distinction between scientific theories and scientific facts is well understood. A "fact" is a property of a natural phenomenon. A "theory" is a naturalistic explanation for a body of facts. That distinction permeates all fields of scientific endeavor. It is no more relevant to discussions of the origin of the universe and life than to any other area of research. By singling out one topic in science -- "origins" -- for special treatment, the legislature conveys the false message that the prevailing theory of "origins" -- evolutionary theory -- is less robust and reliable than all other scientific concepts. This misleadingly disparaging treatment of evolution confirms that the Act favors a particular religious belief.

- further down we find this section (cites snipped) -

In this section we shall explore the unmistakable religious bias reflected in the Act's "taught as a theory" requirement. By applying that requirement only to questions of "origins," the Louisiana legislature drew a scientifically untenable, pejorative distinction between evolutionary science and other scientific endeavors. A review of the process and vocabulary of science will confirm that the essence of a scientific "theory" does not vary from discipline to discipline. The Act's "fact-theory" distinction, which has no basis in science -- but which reflects the belief system of certain fundamentalist sects -- confirms that "fundamentalist sectarian conviction was and is the law's reason for existence."

Here's an essay the apologist might find helpful.
Theory

And here's another. Just a Theory

From the latter:
This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.

Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.

The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.


The “just a theory” apologetic is an assertion that can only be made from a position of ignorance.

and a 2nd direct quote
6. "Man can't come from mud."
The above bad apologist is using a typical anti-evolutionary tactic by disparaging mud (or goop, or sludge or whatever term is most alliterative) but the “man to mud” one is particularly problematic for them in that they seem to be ignoring their own scriptures.

Genesis 2:
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Water?
Dirt?

Man did come from mud!!!
 
- I very much agree; I've been meaning to write a (long!) essay on bad Xian apologies.

- What are some others we've heard? Let's put a long list up.
 
The 'man can't come from a bannana' one is interesting..

I think the strongest argument they have is (even though the burden of proof seems to be one them) that no one can pove that god(s) doesn't exist.

It is true that there are some logical problems with demanding that, but still, that is their strongest argument.
(considering some negatives can be proved. There are no rats in my shoe, etc)
 
AtheistArchon said:
- I very much agree; I've been meaning to write a (long!) essay on bad Xian apologies.

- What are some others we've heard? Let's put a long list up.

Thanks for the validation AA. :)

I have a few more I'll be posting tonight. Some creation/evolution stuff, some church/state, some pure apologetics. I used to have a Yahoo Club called "Bad Apologia" but I gave it away and it's since been deleted (at least I can't find it in the directory).

My biggest problem with bad apologia is that it relies on the ignorance of the listener. With some debates, as the ever popular and seemingly interminable Free Will, nuance, connotation and verbiage allow for page after page after.. ad nauseum of arguments. With truly bad apologia, the ◊◊◊◊ hits the fan as soon as you dig any deeper than the assertions made by the apologist.

I'm much more into no ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ factual discussions than interminable navel gazing. :)
 
Whodini said:
The 'man can't come from a bannana' one is interesting..

I think the strongest argument they have is (even though the burden of proof seems to be one them) that no one can pove that god(s) doesn't exist.

It is true that there are some logical problems with demanding that, but still, that is their strongest argument.
(considering some negatives can be proved. There are no rats in my shoe, etc)

Over the years I have grown averse to slice and dice replies so please forgive my single fussilade.

The man from whatever or Hovind's, tobacco, kidney bean and human are the same argument are some of the worst out there.

I do feel that the burden lies on the postive claimant. Isn't that the root of skepticism? "Show me?" That said I do ascribe to weak atheism in that (blah blah blah.. you're familiar with it) primarily in that the word atheos predates Huxley's coining of agnostic by about 2,000 years and as a History buff, I tend to have more respect for older things (ask my Orthodox Christian and Wiccan friends about this).

I've offered my pet provable negative (no placental monotremes) but as has been pointed out that's an oxymoron. I still contend that oxymorons are the most provable of negatives in that they are factually or logically exclusive. I remain of the position that I cannot show there is no deity of any sort, but I remain "a theos" without diety, meaning that I don't see there being any that exists or at the very very least, one with the slightest bit of interest in human affairs.

As J.B.S Haldane is reported to have quoted when asked knowledge of a creator might be derived from an observation of his creation, "an inordinate fondness for beetles."
 
One thing baffles me. The universe is not generally set up to maintain and support order. Things have a natural tendancy to decline into disrepair, chaos, and unstructured chaos.

If you build a house out of bricks, and leave it in the forest for a million years, it doesn't matter how well built it is; you would bbe very surprised tofind anything other than a pile of degraded bricks, if even that.

And yet, ifwe leave a pile of bricks in the forest for a million years, we would be equally astonished to return to the site, and find a fully constructed house.

We can look at the idea of a hosue assembling itself out of sheer luck, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. it's not the way things are." And yet, we look at evolution, and of course it's how things are.

I prefer to think of evolution itself as evidence of God. Why wouldn't it be? (and I do fully expect to get blasted for this.)
 
Akots said:


We can look at the idea of a house assembling itself out of sheer luck, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. It's not the way things are." And yet, we look at evolution, and of course it's how things are.

I prefer to think of evolution itself as evidence of God. Why wouldn't it be? (and I do fully expect to get blasted for this.)

No blasting here; I quite agree.

YES, Thermodynamics says that everything will eventually fall apart BUT...
...it is possible to create order temporarily, and the Universe has contrived a means of exploiting that little loophole in its own rules: LIFE.
In the midst of entropy, patterns emerge. Life is persistent and pervasive, and it's a real marvel that it exists at all; moreso that life has become capable of pondering its own origin and its fate. It makes me wonder, too...
 
Akots said:
One thing baffles me. The universe is not generally set up to maintain and support order. Things have a natural tendancy to decline into disrepair, chaos, and unstructured chaos.

If you build a house out of bricks, and leave it in the forest for a million years, it doesn't matter how well built it is; you would bbe very surprised tofind anything other than a pile of degraded bricks, if even that.

And yet, ifwe leave a pile of bricks in the forest for a million years, we would be equally astonished to return to the site, and find a fully constructed house.

We can look at the idea of a hosue assembling itself out of sheer luck, and we can easily say "Well, that's ridiculous. it's not the way things are." And yet, we look at evolution, and of course it's how things are.

I prefer to think of evolution itself as evidence of God. Why wouldn't it be? (and I do fully expect to get blasted for this.)

I definitely won’t be blasting you as I’ve been hoping more religious people would come to that conclusion. If you’ve ever read “29 Evidences for Macro-Evolution” on Talk Origins you know that it’s one of the most powerful defenses of evolution laid out for the layman. It’s also written by a Pentecostal.

I responded to a news article reporting on a creation evangelist who stated that people accept evolution because it allows them to reject a creator by stating, “… the opposite is true and people cannot accept the fact of evolution because they mistakenly believe they must reject their creator.”

Now about The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) and evolution. The reason why it doesn’t come into play is due to misinterpreation and misapplication by creationists. 2LOT deals with physics and applies to closed systems. Life is contrained by physics, but only certain laws apply to life at certain times. Life is also not a closed system.

For example, I cannot fly because of gravity and aerodynamics. Both physical laws apply me trying to take flight. However, once I strap on a hang glider, I can fly because of those laws and in direct contradiction to their rules. Add an engine and throw the laws of inertia into the mix and I can fly in complete violation of gravity.

To analogize the open system of life, let’s use your brick house. A brick house, left to it’s own to face the elements would of course be subject to entropy and would crumble in a million years. But instead of a house, say you were looking at some small hills and ten million years later you came back and there was a mighty mountain range now. Why didn’t those small hills erode to a flat plain and degrade just like the house did? The reason is that the earth’s surface, just like life and earth itself is an open system and the heat provided by the earth’s core caused plate tectonics to build up the surface rather than allow it to just degrade.

The brick house had no internal or external mechanism to prevent entropy and degredation. Your pile of bricks similarly had no mechanisms to cause it to become a house. Life has both. Heat from the sun and the core of the earth cause environmental changes that set up the natural selective process that is one of the mechanisms of evolution. Internally life has the ability to mutate and allow for life to adapt to it’s environment. Both mechanisms would be the equivalent of a repair or a building team for your house/pile of bricks analogy.

Comparing non-living materials with living materials is a false dichotomy. The two are not analogous and it’s not helpful in determining if 2LOT should be applied to life. For a more elucidating discussion on the subject, please check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
 
Fish Bites Man

A Christian fish tale that’s similar to but not quite as popular as the NASA computer and Joshua’s long day is the tale of a British Sailor who supposedly fell off the Star of the East, was swallowed by a whale and was rescued a few days later when the same whale was captured, slit open and sailor James Bartley fell out. He was discolored and grotesque looking from his time in the whale’s belly… just like Jonah. Surely this story proves the Jonah story to not just be possible but undoubtedly true.

In fact Jack chick includes a wonderfully dramatic panel in one of his tracts showing what Jonah and by extension Bartley would have looked like.
0289_14.gif

One might question why God would protect Jonah from the crushing pressures and lack of oxygen, but not from the fish’s stomach acid, but I’m sure there’s a suffering aspect to this I’m not considering.

The problem is the story just isn’t true. This lengthy and well documented article shows that the Bartley fish story is just that. It’s written by a Christian so hopefully the apologist will be more amenable to it’s information than if it had come from a more secular source. My experience is that hubris will prevent them from doing so though.
 
This is exactly why I love this forum. I had been mulling over the notion of beginning a thread just like this, only I was taking a longer time to formulate it, and then someone else beats me to it, in a more elegant fashion than I could have managed. Bravo!
 
Wish I could be more contributive to this thread, love it though. Love it like a... really good thing.

Creation vs. evolution is simply the moster of ridiculousness flexing its wings into our line of sight. While the (hard) work of many scientist with good rhetorical skills and strong critical thinking have kept creationism out of schools (primary concern), I think that we have to kill the rest of the monster before cre(a)ti(o)nsim goes away.




long live talkorigins.org!
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Fish Bites Man

A Christian fish tale that’s similar to but not quite as popular as the NASA computer and Joshua’s long day is the tale of a British Sailor who supposedly fell off the Star of the East, was swallowed by a whale and was rescued a few days later when the same whale was captured, slit open and sailor James Bartley fell out. He was discolored and grotesque looking from his time in the whale’s belly… just like Jonah. Surely this story proves the Jonah story to not just be possible but undoubtedly true.

Not only is Bartley's tale false...this premise is false. The Bible has this to say about Jonah's escape from the big fish:

Jonah 2:10
And the LORD spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

That's it...nothing about Jonah looking the slightest bit different after his time in the whale. As soon as Jonah is on dry land, God sends him straight to Nineveh for his next adventure.

Though I'm certainly not Christian, the Book of Jonah happens to be one of my favorite books of the Bible. The way the Gentiles are described, and the way God deals with Jonah and Nineveh are so completely opposite of what the rest of the Old Testament says, it should be clear to even the casual reader that the Book of Jonah simply doesn't belong in the Bible - and may even be satire.
 
Akots said:
And yet, we look at evolution, and of course it's how things are.
Well, no. Not if you know anything at all about evolution or thermodynamics. (Hint: the second law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, not a metaphor you can apply wherever and however you choose.)
I prefer to think of evolution itself as evidence of God. Why wouldn't it be?
Why on Earth would it be?
(and I do fully expect to get blasted for this.)
Well, consider yourself blasted.
 
PixyMisa said:
Well, no. Not if you know anything at all about evolution or thermodynamics. (Hint: the second law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, not a metaphor you can apply wherever and however you choose.)

Problems with citing the second law of thermodynamics as a problem with evolution have already been discussed, but since you insist, I'll go over them again:

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a thermodynamically isolated system, any changes in thermodynamic state will result in increase in entropy.

And what does that mean? Think of thermodynamics in terms of gambling, that is you can't win (can't produce energy) you can't break even (increase in entropy) and you can't leave (thermodaynamics apply to the entire universe).

Evolution is in no way violating the second law of thermodynamics. Life forms themselves are spreading entropy, and earth is in no way a closed thermodynamic system, considering the fact that we are being bombarded with more sunlight than we can use, all the energy that we need for earthl processes, including evolution (name a power source besides geothermal and nuclear that does not derive from the sun).

Evolution is the differentiation of populations over time in response to the environments, with the trend towards more ideal designs. But because the environment is constantly shifting, the process goes on with quite amusing results (moas).

All the time, whether eating or reproducing or even sleeping, all life forms are happily spreadin entropy throughout the universe, and taking in energy from the sun directly or othewise.

Think of life as little waterwheels under the enourmous waterfall that is the sun. Yes, they spread the water out more, and yes, the do make more of themselves. And also, the new waterwheels start to look a little different after a few generations, bucause they are more suited to whatever the pressures of that era are, but it doesn't change the fact that the water is getting spread out.
 

Back
Top Bottom