Atheists believe mouse traps evolved

>nuh uh people make mouse traps idiot

All processes can only be either supernatural or natural.
If the supernatural doesn't exist, all processes are natural.
All material things that exist, exist because of processes.
All material things that exist, exist because of natural processes.
All material things that exist because of natural processes, evolved into existence.
Therefore if the supernatural doesn't exist, mousetraps, technology, and literally everything evolved.

As for irreducible complexity:

"Component" will be defined by its unique function and not its form. Here are some likelihoods of the existence of all components necessary for any system, such as people, to exist.

If a necessary biological system requires only 33 specific components, and these components were each to exist randomly for a total of 1.1 billion years, or 1/4 the age of the earth, over the total age of the earth, then there's a 47% chance they would never exist at the same time. If a system requires 34 specific components, there's a 74% chance they would never exist at the same time during the entire existence of the earth, because they would all exist at the same time only about once every 17.2 billion years. This number increases exponentially with every additional required component.

There are about 21,000 protein-encoding genes in the human body. Each of these is a component in a larger system. Under similar generous conditions, if each of these components were necessary, they would exist about once every 4.26 * 10^6321 or 426 with 6,319 zeros after it years.

There aren't just 33 components in the body, but millions of systems. It is reasonable to believe more than 33 of these are irreducibly complex, and thus, that evolution is absurd.

Other urls found in this thread:

trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.php
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>he doesn't know about emergent complexity

Like a self replicating organism that can take in food without losing it's innards, and digest food without digesting itself?

FPBP genetic algorithms work.

Also there exists an "ecology" of mousetraps and the evolution of mousetrap memes in human society. Thousands of years of building better mousetraps.

The design of a mousetrap is a meme, an idea understandable by a person. Memes do evolve and undergo natural selection.

Why do I feel that OP is using a massive strawman and ambiguity fallacy?

Oh wow, you've just defined evolution into being true. Congratulations.
Obviously not if those aren't irreducibly complex
No they don't, not if their parameters are set correctly, and they never are. Big surprise that atheists are liars.

if you'd ask a hundred atheists if mousetraps evolve. do you think they would all say yes?

you sir are a closet homosexual and a retard.

The point is that atheism logically necessitates that mouse traps and all material things, evolved, not that atheists actually understand or acknowledge their cognitive dissonance.

>create a "world" for genetic algorithm agents
>create no fitness algorithm but allow death and reproduction
>petri dish is full of monsters that kill everything that isn't kin and reproduce

>Therefore if the supernatural doesn't exist, mousetraps, technology, and literally everything evolved.

Flawless logic.

>all material things thag exist because of natural processes, evolved into existence
That's where you make a big assumption. Either that, or your definition of evolution is very, very wide. Like, if there was a natural process of a mouse trap appearing out of thin air, is that evolution by your terms?

What are you going on about? Our cell phones have evolved, in the sense that it gradually changed. Everything gradually changes at least to some extent. The Theory of Evolution is different than the word evolve.

Name something that appears out of thin air

>Protip
>youcan't

positron-electron pairs

Oxegen

Prove that there is no natural way of something appearing out of thin air.

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed

It's only a definitional premise so I could use the word "evolve." You can simply stop at premise 4 if you want, and it's just as absurd.

prove that God doesn't exist

Can you answer my question

A ‘trait’ can only be quantitative so that any move towards the objective can be selected for. Many biological traits are qualitative—it either works or it does not, so there is no step-wise means of getting from no function to the function.

A single trait is selected for, whereas any living thing is multidimensional. A GA will not work with three or four different objectives, or I dare say even just two. A GA does not test for survival; it tests for only a single trait. Even with the simplest bacteria, which are not at all simple, hundreds of traits have to be present for it to be viable (survive); selection has to operate on all traits that affect survival.

Something always survives to carry on the process. There is no rule in evolution that says that some organism(s) in the evolving population will remain viable no matter what mutations occur. In fact, the GAs that I have looked at artificially preserve the best of the previous generation and protect it from mutations or recombination in case nothing better is produced in the next iteration. This has a ratchet effect that ensures that the GA will generate the desired outcome—any move in the right direction is protected. This is certainly the case with Dawkins’ (in)famous ‘Weasel’ simulation—see Weasel Words and Dawkins’ weasel revisited.

Perfect selection (selection coefficient, s = 1.0) is often applied so that in each generation only the best survives to ‘reproduce’ to produce the next generation. In the real world, selection coefficients of 0.01 or less are considered realistic, in which case it would take many generations for an information-adding mutation to permeate through a population. Putting it another way, the cost of substitution is ignored (see ReMine’s The Biotic Message for a thorough run-down of this, which is completely ignored in GAs—see Population genetics, Haldane’s Dilemma, etc.).

The flip side to this is that high rates of ‘reproduction’ are used. Bacteria can only double their numbers per generation. Many ‘higher’ organisms can only do a little better, but GAs commonly produce 100s or 1000s of ‘offspring’ per generation. For example, if a population of 1,000 bacteria had only one survivor (999 died), then it would take 10 generations to get back to 1,000.

Generation time is ignored. A generation can happen in a computer in microseconds whereas even the best bacteria take about 20 minutes. Multicellular organisms have far longer generation times.

The mutation rate is artificially high (by many orders of magnitude). This is sustainable because the ‘genome’ is small (see next point) and artificial rules are invoked to protect the best ‘organism’ from mutations, for example. Such mutation rates in real organisms would result in all the offspring being non-viable (error catastrophe). This is why living things have exquisitely designed editing machinery to minimize copying errors to the rate of one in about 10 billion (for humans).

The ‘genome’ is artificially small and only does one thing. The smallest real world genome is over 0.5 million base pairs (and it is an obligate parasite, which depends on its host for many of the substrates needed) with several hundred proteins coded. This is equivalent to over a million bits of information. Even if a GA generated 1800 bits of real information, as one of the commonly-touted ones claims, that is equivalent to maybe one small enzyme—and that was achieved with totally artificial mutation rates, generation times, selection coefficients, etc., etc. In fact, this is also how the body’s immune system develops specific antibodies, with these designed conditions totally different to any whole organism. This is pointed out in more detail by biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner in his refutation of a skeptic.

Which one?

In real organisms, mutations occur throughout the genome, not just in a gene or section that specifies a given trait. This means that all the deleterious changes to other traits have to be eliminated along with selecting for the rare desirable changes in the trait being selected for. This is ignored in GAs.

There is no problem of irreducible complexity with GAs (see Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box). Many biological traits require many different components to be present, functioning together, for the trait to exist at all (e.g. protein synthesis, DNA replication, reproduction of a cell, blood clotting, every metabolic pathway, etc.).

Polygeny (where a trait is determined by the combined action of more than one gene) and pleiotropy (where one gene can affect several different traits) are ignored. Furthermore, recessive genes are ignored (recessive genes cannot be selected for unless present as a pair; i.e. homozygous), which multiplies the number of generations needed to get a new trait established in a population. The problem of recessive genes leads to one facet of Haldane’s Dilemma, where the well-known evolutionist J.B.S. Haldane pointed out that, based on the theorems of population genetics, there has not been enough time for the sexual organisms with low reproductive rates and long generation times to evolve. See review of ReMine’s analysis of Haldane’s Dilemma.

Multiple coding genes are ignored. From the human genome project, it appears that, on average, each gene codes for at least three different proteins (see Genome Mania — Deciphering the human genome. In microbes, genes have been discovered that code for one protein when ‘read’ in one direction and a different protein when read backwards, or when the ‘reading’ starts one letter on. Creating a GA to generate such information-dense coding would seem to be out of the question. Such demands an intelligence vastly superior to human beings for its creation.

The outcome in a GA is ‘pre-ordained’. Evolution is by definition purposeless, so no computer program that has a pre-determined goal can simulate it—period. This is blatantly true of Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, where the selection of each letter sequence is determined entirely on its match with the pre-programmed goal sequence. Perhaps if the programmer could come up with a program that allowed anything to happen and then measured the survivability of the ‘organisms’, it might be getting closer to what evolution is supposed to do! Of course that is impossible (as is evolution).

With a particular GA, we need to ask how much of the ‘information’ generated by the program is actually specified in the program, rather than being generated de novo. A number of modules or subroutines are normally specified in the program, and the ways these can interact is also specified. The GA program finds the best combinations of modules and the best ways of interacting them. The amount of new information generated is usually quite trivial, even with all the artificial constraints designed to make the GA work.
>trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.php

Any of them.

>Protip you can't prove a negative

So what? What you're saying is true, but what is your point here? Are you taking excerpts from the internet?

>If the supernatural doesn't exist, all processes are natural.

But it does exist. Humans are supernatural.

>Consciousness
Check m8 atheists. Have fun being miserable and cucks forever.

Yes, seems like pretty convincing reasons that "muh GAs work" isn't fucking true.

>Evil exists

Check m8 theists. Have fun knowing God either doesn't exist or that he wants you to be miserable and ignorant forever.

If there is no supernatural, our cell phones "evolved" in the exact same sense that life evolved. They are a natural consequence of matter and fundamental forces of the universe, and absolutely nothing else.

>there has not been enough time for sexual species to evolve
But there had, evidenced by our own existence. We know we evolved, we know the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, so since we have evolved, there has been enough time. There isn't any objectional amount of time it takes for a species to evolve either. Your excerpts pretty much explain that. An great example would he the crocodile, even if there are changes in a new offspring, it will never be enough to challenge the phenotypes that are present; they are perfectly suited to their environment. There is a reason other species look similar to this form, and mimic it, and why prehistoric species also have that figure of what we see a crocodile has. Convergent Evolution.

creating ambiguity about a term is not an argument idiot. atheists have nothing to do with evolution. you can be an atheist and not believe in evolution. also you did not even remotely answer my question. fuck off. your retarded.

Hey dumbass, once you get the natural selection ball rolling, it's not random anymore. So all you need to do is get the most basic components of life, once, and then you're gold.

...Now, that would be, at bare minimum, a self catalyzing RNA polymer spontaneously forming from a dilute ribonucleotide mixture and getting engulfed in an amphiphilic lipid bilayer. Which approaches impossibility.

But spreading obvious misinformation which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what it is you are trying to disprove only serves to hurt your cause.

Poor lad, you don't even know what he's talking about.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't apply to cell phones. What is your point though? So, what? What are you getting at? Music has evolved, but The Theory of Evolution does not apply to music.

You are not not on Sup Forums. Save that "can't prove a negative" shit for your stupid friends

Your whining and bitching doesn't mean evil exists.

>original sin
Learn2theology friend

>creating ambiguity about a term is not an argument idiot.
I didn't say it was, idiot.
>atheists have nothing to do with evolution.
Not true. atheism -> evolution
>you can be an atheist and not believe in evolution.
I stand corrected. atheism -> evolution v delusion
>also you did not even remotely answer my question.
I doubt it.

not not cancels and becomes a positive. I can prove I'm on Sup Forums.

Oh? post your real name, bank account number and SSN then. Since evil does not exist.

>All material things that exist because of natural processes, evolved into existence.

And this is where you lost it.

Everything that exists, evolved from dust, is what you must accept.

So evil exists

Why does God allow this?
Either he is not all good, all knowing, or all caring. Pretty basic theological argument that theists have never been able to counter.

Because good cannot exist without evil. God created and allows evil to exist to prove his own goodness and thus get people to follow him.

>not not cancels and becomes a positive. I can prove I'm on Sup Forums.
No it doesn't. There's no such thing as positive or negative existence. "Not on Sup Forums" is just semantics, and proving it is logically no different than proving you are on Sup Forums. "Can't prove a negative" is just something stupid, unexperienced people say so they can sound smart or avoid the burden of explain themselves.
>Oh? post your real name, bank account number and SSN then. Since evil does not exist.
You don't seem to understand what evil is.

Then he is not all good. Thus disproving his own existence.

Except that is what happened.
Doesn't matter what you argue, the fact that it happened means your argument is invalid.
I could construct an argument that gravity doesn't exist, if I used that argument to disregard the evidence that gravity does exist I would be a retard.
You are aruing against evolution not the theory but the fact of evolution, thus you are a retard.

Next time argue with the theory it's less retarded.

Who said I am denying? And by "dust," I'm going to assume to meant atoms, or colloquially space dust. What's your point? Everthing that has ever existed was once atoms. So what? This isn't news to me.

Prove that Steve doesn't exist.

Why are you people so stupid? That's just a semantical premise equivocating "occurring by natural processes" and "evolving," which is 100% sound.

Because when man fell they disobeyed God and sin (evil) entered the world and thus started to corrupt EVERYTHING. They did this because God gave man free will because what good is love if it's forced? It's not really love. There is actually loads and loads of Christian theology about this topic. Common misconception now a days. God is not good God is just.

He is because he could not be good without evil. Creating evil was the necessary step to being able to be good.

>I know more than thousands of years of philosophers and scientists
Kys retard.

And neither is true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

>implying cheese isn't a life form
>implying the cheese didn't integrate with that metal wiring and is now a bionic organism

Literally never says anything about God created evil. God created free will and rules which Set up an opera unity for evil to exist. Ugh JUST the word here is JUST.

We have observed evolution both on a macroscopic and microscopic scale and have accurately discovered the underlying math that makes it work. It's factually true. Evolution itself is an observation.

What we don't know how the whole thing got set in motion.

Even grad school scientists know this.

But a God that creates evil is EVIL. Thus negating your argument that he needs evil to be good, he can't be good because he created evil in the first place.

Why does God punish you for things he has knows you will do. He knows everything you will do, and the possibilities, furthermore which possibility that will happen. Is God not "all-knowing," because that's what omniscience is. He knows whether or not someone will obey him, and if they will go to heaven or hell, before they were even born. Why?

How would people know what good was if there was no evil ? , is heaven not heaven when you suffered on earth first for 85 years

No he didn't this user is just ignorant. And you have a moral perception of good and evil ITS JUST YOU SHITSKINS

Doing the necessary thing required to allow good to exist is not evil, even if that thing is making evil. If I create both concepts then I can either neither or both.

Evidence of absence is not proof.

How many times have we seen a species reemerge that was previously thought to be extinct... because of evidence of absence?

Knowing the outcome of giving humans free will does not mean he caused it, you idiot.

God didn't create evil, He created humans. Humans created evil.

Because God is "perfection" and as soon as sin entered man we no longer were perfect. We fell. God can not be near sin since He is perfect and thus sin is not in his nature.

Good can exist without evil. Comprehending and categorizing the experiences as separate is what comes from having both, but it is easily possible to exist in states of pure blissful ignorance, with 0 negativity or contrary experience.

This is why everyone thinks christcucks are stupid.

Indeed that is why absence of proof does not prove a thing does not exist.

This guy gets it

Then he is not all knowing or is not all powerful. with both he could create a free willed being that would still never commit evil.

If he is all powerful he could still stop evil.

So he choose not to stop evil when he has the power to do so or he chooses to ignore evil.

Either way he can't be all good.

Yes it does. All things that have no proof of existence can be said to not exist. The concept becomes strange when you try to apply static objectivity to it. This is a changing universe and you're trying to apply static constraints to things that change, without conceding that the constraints must change too. In other words, unicorns don't exist because there is no evidence for them. However, if tomorrow a real life unicorn was found, then unicorns exist. Do you see how time changes things? Things don't exist, until they do, then they change.

>free will to NEVER commit evil
Doesn't sound like free will to me
>chooses not to stop evil
Uhm hello revelations?
Dude you're grasping at straws now. Can you at least have some background in Christianity before making yourself seem like a fool?

>he could create a free willed being that would still never commit evil.

There is no logical reason to assume this is true. The physical world has limitations, regardless of God's extra-dimensional omnipotence. This is as senseless as the "God cannot make a rock so heavy He cannot lift it" line of BS. Both are implying an extra-dimensional being should have or break physical limitations, which doesn't make sense. God necessarily must exist outside of space and time.

>So he choose not to stop evil when he has the power to do so or he chooses to ignore evil.
God doesn't (generally) intervene in human affairs. He saves sinners, but is not the cause of sin, nor is it His responsibility to stop sin in the physical world.

If your all so fucking clever, prove you don't live on me planetary left nut.

it's annoying when people try to use completely unrelated large words

>They Don't Think It Be Like It Is But It Do

Well argued m8.

JUST GOD IS JUST JUST GOD IS JUST GOD IS JUST GOD IS JUST
YOUR HUMAN CONCEPT OF GOOD v. EVIL DO NOT APPLY

why do parents punish children for things they know they will do? lol

Whether or not people know about something has no bearing on whether or not it exists.

Existence is not subjective.

No without evil,, free will cant exist , that is why only good people can go to heaven , satan became evil in heaven, so god would make sure he would only let good people in who would not do evil things and fuck it up again

Burden of proof. It is not the opposition's responsibility to disprove the claimed deity. However, the fact that those claiming God does exist having no objectional scientific proof, is not evidence that God does not exist. Another question comes up, is that if God is even falsifiable, or any deity for that matter. The metaphysical does not exist, if something does not exist through the means of scientifically proven ways, it does not exist. Many theists use the logic of how our dreams being real, means something metaphysical can exist, because it already does to some extent. The events in our dreams happened, but they do not exist in a literal sense. The boogey-man exists in my dreams, but he not really exist. It is confusing, I should add. There isn't any proof against God, but as an atheist, is there reason enough to reject the belief that he does? In my perspective, yes. The fact that deities are just the product of ignorant supersticious humans is enough reason, the same reason we don't believe the Tooth-fairy exist. Be mindful of the multiple definitions of exist, as this often leads to an ambiguity fallacy. There are thousands of other deities, too, none are more falsifiable or objectional than the other. It would be a matter of chance. Early citizens in civilizations adored the idea of an afterlife; we naturally fear death due to our desire to live. This happens involuntarily - there is a reason adrenaline is released. These things do not disprove God, but it provides me reason enough to reject the idea.

This problem is easily explained by explaining that "God" is the representation of the crafter of the physical world and all required to experience it, but that the physical world is an artifical extension of the base, energetic or "astral" plane we as conciousnesses come from. We existed in pure states of either pure bliss, or pure agony, as eternal, concious forms of energy, until "God" created the physical world and forced the pure chaos and pure order together into a cycle. This cycle drives time in the physical world and is Oruboros, the infinity of a snake eating it's tail. We are, originally only good or only evil energy beings who were ripped from that astral reality and shoved into this physical one that traps us within the cycle so our energies can be fed off on. A complex farm for entities who need to devour essence that can only be as delicious, as sublime as when gathered from suffering Human minds.

Consciousness

I believe in higher power without being a christcuck

desu it's the only way that innate morality can exist mang

good can't exist without evil. Because then the least good thing that is still good from our point of view, in a world without evil, becomes the evil

Because God knows whether or not someone will go to Heaven or Hell does not mean He caused them to go there.

Free will was SO IMPORTANT to God that He felt he had to create a world where evil existed just to preserve said free will. If a human makes bad decisions and faces consequences as a result, it's not God's fault because He gave them the choice.

Existence is only subjective. The fact I can type out that sentiment proves it. I am free to disagree with you. In an objective reality, I could not.

HOL UP

since every tribe on earth believed in deity

wouldn't it be you who is the one trying to prove something new?

'new' is just from the point of view of commonly acceptable theory and who is trying to prove and disprove something

i say that since the average person believes in higher power, the burden of proof is on you

Ur retarded m8

Good can exist without evil and evil without good. It only becomes a problem when trying to understand, comprehend or define those things.

Atheists are fucking dumb and exist to be Darwined.

There is no point to any of these threads. We already know exactly what the atheist deserves: eternal hellfire.

Our job is not to argue, but to ensure.

You don't understand what objectivity is. Whether or not you can prove something has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

why can't you have free will in objective reality?

So God already knows wheather someone is good or evil before they are born. In fact he wrote up where everyone goes after death because no matter what choice you make it will always be known to God.

Doesn't sound like free will.

A good example why this is nonsense.

lol no m8

that's like saying light can exist without dark

Irrelevant. There reason would be to teach their child. However, the lesson that god provides is teaching nothing. The parents do not know, they only think they might, which is different. God knows 100% fact that I will do the things I do, and if I would go to heaven. We are mever given a chance, our faith is predetermined in advance. How is that not ambiguous in the slightess? God is sending billions of people to hell, for things he already knew who would go. And does nothing. He is literally creating people to suffer for eternity in the long run. The parent would punish their child because of the judgement they made. And to have them learn from it. How is that what God is doing?

>Which one?
Odin and Thor

We know magical space jesus and that greek bitch is real according to OP