Point refuted a thousand times
From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Armondikov (Talk | contribs) (→Examples of PRATTs) |
(Agnosticism? Implicit atheism? Deism? Pantheism? "Non-religious spirituality"? The possibilities are endless.) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
;[[Atheism]] is a religion. | ;[[Atheism]] is a religion. | ||
| − | :While it's pretty certain some people can be quite passionate and organised about atheism - and even issue out religion-like edicts about what atheists should and shouldn't do - atheism itself is not a religion. It has no [[dogma]] to follow and is a completely non-prescriptive belief system. | + | :While it's pretty certain some people can be quite passionate and organised about atheism - and even issue out religion-like edicts about what atheists should and shouldn't do - atheism itself is not a religion. It has no [[dogma]] to follow and is a completely non-prescriptive belief system. As proof of this, there have been quite a number of dogmas and/or prescriptive belief systems bolted onto atheism, of which the two best known are [[secular humanism]] and [[communism]]. |
;The origin of life is not explained by [[evolution]], therefore it is wrong: | ;The origin of life is not explained by [[evolution]], therefore it is wrong: | ||
Revision as of 02:46, 19 June 2011
- PRATT redirects here. If you happened to look for any scientist/engineer/other people with such a surname, you are at the wrong wiki.
A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, is a common phrase on internet forums where debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. Once someone has labeled an argument a PRATT, that usually means they have no interest in discussing it. This could itself be a diversionary tactic.
The website talk.origins acts as a repository of PRATTs commonly used by creationists, and presents (usually in great detail) their refutations and science behind them. The site is a good starting point when facing a PRATT.
Contents |
Examples of PRATTs
These assertions are mostly very easy to refute, but remain persistent arguments due to ignorance.
- The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.[1]
- The second law is frequently misinterpreted here as if to say that complicated or ordered structures were completely forbidden from forming. Thermodynamics applies to what are known as closed systems, and the Earth (and the evolution occurring on it) are not closed. Energy from the sun acts as a driving force for chemical reactions, which are a key part of biology. Thus the second law of thermodynamics can be "violated" on Earth quite easily.
- Atheism is a direct cause of lawless behavior. This is similarly untrue for almost all beliefs, with the notable exception of Murderism, which to be fair has never really caught on.
- If this was true, most of Scandinavia would be well known as hotbed of insane violence. As it currently stands, it isn't.[2] Neither is there much obvious correlation between lawlessness and religion as most causes of crime are attributed to social and economic conditions. Religion, or lack of it, isn't often viewed as a contributing factor.
- The fossil record gives us no transitional forms.[3][4]
- Entire pages of books and websites have been dedicated to listing transitional fossils. Just as much has been written describing what a transitional form actually would be - specifically that all fossils are really transitions between something and something else. Creationists say that transitional fossils don't exist so much that this could be considered the ultimate PRATT. Their repeated use of this point in the face of evidence is an extreme form of denialism.
- Evolution theory is inseparable from social Darwinism.[5]
- Besides being a twisted argument from adverse consequences this point is wrong. Charles Darwin was never involved in social Darwinism and never endorsed or - nor was the theory inspired by it. However, even if he was a proponent of social Darwinism or eugenics, and even if every evolutionary biologist since was also a fan, this fact would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of evolution. This point is like arguing that theories about gravitation are all wrong because walking off a cliff results in death.
- Evolutionism is a religion.[6]
- There is no worship in evolution, there is no blind faith or adherence - only evidence. Religion is a quite nicely defined social construct, and no aspect of evolutionary theories fit in. At all. In short, if you were to stretch the definition of "religion" far enough to include evolution the term would cease to have any real use or proper meaning.
- Atheism is a religion.
- While it's pretty certain some people can be quite passionate and organised about atheism - and even issue out religion-like edicts about what atheists should and shouldn't do - atheism itself is not a religion. It has no dogma to follow and is a completely non-prescriptive belief system. As proof of this, there have been quite a number of dogmas and/or prescriptive belief systems bolted onto atheism, of which the two best known are secular humanism and communism.
- The origin of life is not explained by evolution, therefore it is wrong
- The point cannot be overstated enough that evolution explains the origin of species and speciation, and the diversity of life as it reproduces (biogenesis). The "origin" of life would be explained by a different mechanism, although there may be aspects of natural selection involved. This is referred to as abiogenesis, and it has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
- Most evidence of the moon landing hoax
- There are as many websites out there pointing out the blatantly obvious flaws in this conspiracy theory as there are websites trying to support the conspiracy theory. "Buzz Aldrin isn't holding a camera!" - the astronaut's cameras were attached to their chests. "There's a prop visible with 'C' written on it!" - no one labels their props like that. "The flag waves in the wind!" - grow up and read some physics. And so on and so forth.
See also
- Creationist escape hatches
- Fun:Creationist Argument Bingo
- How come there are still monkeys?
- Logical fallacy
- Not even wrong