I wonder if there’s a name for the logical fallacy that goes like this: “Because I don’t fully understand X, I think that X implies Y. Y isn’t true, therefore X isn’t true.”
For example: “If the earth were warming, we wouldn’t be having big snowstorms. Therefore global warming is a lie.”
That’s not how global warming works. It doesn’t mean that the temperature is uniformly higher everywhere. It does mean that severe weather events will become more common, including snowstorms.
The laws of thermodynamics don’t debunk evolution because the Earth is not a closed system.
(There was also an “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” question in that set, but for my own sanity I choose to believe that dude was trolling.)
What really gets to me about this kind of argument isn’t that it comes from ignorance. We’re all ignorant about something, and ignorance can be cured. It’s that the people making them all seem to use this smug, “how do you answer THAT, smartypants!” tone.
I know that it’s just a specific kind of false premise, but the insistence that your ignorance trumps others’ expertise really makes it special. If it doesn’t already have a name, I vote for Argument from Faulty Understanding.