A challenge for atheist (From Youtube)

[leroy]

Every genetic algorithm ever implemented.

Or actual biological experiments.
Like how e coli evolved new metabolic pathways (making it "more complex") to grow on a new foodsource where it wasn't able to grow on before.

Post 2 and still avoiding your burden proof

Yes examples of increase complexity occur, this is granted

Your job is to show that on average complexity increases (considering the fact that sometimes mutations decrease complexity)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey, @leroy - are you ever going to bother actually disproving Santa Claus?

How would that be a disproof of Santa Claus?

I mean, how do you get from "a parent put presents under a Christmas tree" to "... therefore there is no immortal being living at the North Pole with elves and flying reindeer"?

Edit: bonus question: if someone made your argument against God, would you accept it as valid?

People pray to God to cure their cancer, but we can see many cases where cancer was caused by surgery and chemotherapy, not God... therefore God does not exist.

If a resurrected, now-immortal Turkish bishop lived at the North Pole with elves and flying reindeer, wouldn't you accept this as Santa Claus... no matter how many parents put presents out for their kids with "from Santa" on them?

 

[leroy]

Not just me, but again:

If you mean something else by "miracle," by all means share what you mean when you use the term.


That's right: if Jesus's resurrection had actually happened, it would be natural... even if God did it through powers that are unknown to us.

Ok you don’t have to label this type of events as “miracles” if you don’t want. Feel free to give them a different name.

How would you label “events caused by Gods intervention”? most people would use the word miracle but feel free to call them however you whant-

Then what? what is your point?

 

[leroy]

Hey, @leroy - are you ever going to bother actually disproving Santa Claus?

I can’t disprove the existence of Santa Clause,(especially because there is not a clear definition of what you mean by Santa Clause) but I can prove that there are better explanations for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to Santa.

If you can do the same with God, that would be good enough to justify atheism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Post 1

And you are still avoiding your burden proof

Yes I grant that complexity can increase and that there are many ways to do it

Then what are you complaining about?
Then what you are you yapping about a burden of proof?
You just acknowledged that it was met...............................

, but complexity can also decrease,

Unlikely though.
Once complex subsystems evolve, they usually aren't going anywhere.

so your burden proof is to show that increase complexity is more likely (and therefore it will become the predominant trend)

When you start simple, the only way complexity can go is up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can’t disprove the existence of Santa Clause,(especially because there is not a clear definition of what you mean by Santa Clause) but I can prove that there are better explanations for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to Santa.

If you can do the same with God, that would be good enough to justify atheism.

Suppose you couldn't give any explanations for any of the stuff commonly attributed to santa.

Would that then, in your view, be sufficient reason to believe in santa?

Think carefully.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok you don’t have to label this type of events as “miracles” if you don’t want. Feel free to give them a different name.

How would you label “events caused by Gods intervention”? most people would use the word miracle but feel free to call them however you whant-

Then what? what is your point?

For one thing, it means that arguments like "it was a 'miracle,' therefore God did it, therefore God exists" are just question-begging.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Post 2 and still avoiding your burden proof

Yes examples of increase complexity occur, this is granted

Your job is to show that on average complexity increases (considering the fact that sometimes mutations decrease complexity)

Here's some reading for you:

Evolution: The Rise of Complexity - Scientific American Blog Network
Evolution of biological complexity | PNAS
How evolution guides complexity (nih.gov)
Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity | New Scientist
The Growth of Complexity (vub.ac.be)


Ostrich defense in 3...2...1...

There's also an article in there which I expect has the potential for you to jump on like a hawk. My advice to you is: read before you reply.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can’t disprove the existence of Santa Clause,(especially because there is not a clear definition of what you mean by Santa Clause)

Then are you ready to rephrase what you said about Santa Claus in your OP?

but I can prove that there are better explanations for all the stuff that is commonly attributed to Santa.

I doubt that, but go for it.

Your example of parents and gifts was off-base, though.

The fact that Peter Popoff didn't actually receive messages from God (his wife had spies in the church who would relay messages to Popoff's wife, who would radio them to a hidden earpiece he was wearing) doesn't automatically mean that nobody receives messages from God; by the same token, the fact that some parents may pass off presents as "from Santa" doesn't mean that Santa doesn't ever leave presents under the tree.

If you can do the same with God, that would be good enough to justify atheism.

I gave the example of cancer: people credit God as putting someone's cancer into remission when it was often caused by chemotherapy or surgery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can’t disprove the existence of Santa Clause,(especially because there is not a clear definition of what you mean by Santa Clause)

Hey - let's put some specifics on it, then.

By Santa Claus, I mean:

- St. Nicholas, formerly the Bishop of Myra, died in 343 CE, who has been - somehow - resurrected and now lives as an immortal or quasi-immortal being, and

- he now lives at or near either the North Pole or Lapland, and

- he lives with elves and at least 8 flying reindeer.

Are those enough specifics for you? If so, please disprove this Santa Claus.

 

[leroy]

The


Unlikely though.
Once complex subsystems evolve, they usually aren't going anywhere.

That is exactly what you are expected to prove.

If you can show that beneficial (selectable) mutations that increase complexity are more likely than those that destroy it, you will meet your burden prove

When you start simple, the only way complexity can go is up.

Ok sharing from your simplistic (but usefull) example.

You start simple (100 genes) …. (you cant go down to 99 because you die)

Then you gain complexity (101 genes)

Then you can ether win complexity (102 genes) or lose complexity (100 genes)

Then you can ether become more complex (103 genes) or become simpler 101 genes)

If you do the math you will note that it is very hard to go far beyond 100 and if you are dealig with populations of billions of organism you will always have “many” 100s

 

[Ostronomos]

As I said, 'miracles' are a form of magic, 'magic' is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, and to date, impartial skeptical enquiry has found no examples in reality, the world external to the self.

Nor am I aware of any testable hypothesis as to how magic might work as an aspect of reality.

So at this time the only way in which miracles are known to exist is as concepts, or things imagined, in individual brains.

And yet you are partial as is the belief in atheism.

 

[leroy]

Suppose you couldn't give any explanations for any of the stuff commonly attributed to santa.

Would that then, in your view, be sufficient reason to believe in santa?

Think carefully.

I would consider the evidence, look at the poll of possible explanations and pick the best.

But sure if I see a “human like” creature that moves at super speeds and lives presents in my tree, and other people form other parts of the world saw the same thing, I would grant the existance of santa clause.

 

[leroy]

For one thing, it means that arguments like "it was a 'miracle,' therefore God did it, therefore God exists" are just question-begging.

It would be a very strange type of “atheism” if you accept miracles but reject the existence of a God. … but sure it doesn’t logically follow that miracles = God

 

[Ostronomos]

Yazatas post on page one is the best example of a non partial post

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It would be a very strange type of “atheism” if you accept miracles but reject the existence of a God. … but sure it doesn’t logically follow that miracles = God

I was paraphrasing the argument you gave for why OBEs would be evidence of God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is exactly what you are expected to prove.

If you can show that beneficial (selectable) mutations that increase complexity are more likely than those that destroy it, you will meet your burden prove

I have no need to demonstrate strawmen.
I never said anything about specific mutations.
I said that the process of evolution starting with simplicity will inevitably lead to rising complexity.

Ok sharing from your simplistic (but usefull) example.

You start simple (100 genes) …. (you cant go down to 99 because you die)

Then you gain complexity (101 genes)

Then you can ether win complexity (102 genes) or lose complexity (100 genes)

Then you can ether become more complex (103 genes) or become simpler 101 genes)

If you do the math you will note that it is very hard to go far beyond 100 and if you are dealig with populations of billions of organism you will always have “many” 100s

And if you take acknowledged simplistic hypothetical examples which don't tell the whole story and then smear them out and generalize them as if there are no other processes and factors involved, then you end up with the type of nonsense like you just wrote there.

 

[leroy]

Here's some reading for you:

Evolution: The Rise of Complexity - Scientific American Blog Network
Evolution of biological complexity | PNAS
How evolution guides complexity (nih.gov)
Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity | New Scientist
The Growth of Complexity (vub.ac.be)


Ostrich defense in 3...2...1...

There's also an article in there which I expect has the potential for you to jump on like a hawk. My advice to you is: read before you reply.

do you even reed what you quote?
In fact, natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity. And, in many cases, complexity may initially arise when selection is weak or absent.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ads-to-ever-greater-complexity/#ixzz7Ht1ZOONJ

Rather than being driven by selection, they propose that complexity initially arises when selection is weak or absent.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ads-to-ever-greater-complexity/#ixzz7Ht1pr9we

However, Maynard Smith (1970), Raup et al. (1973), Gould (1989, 1994, 1996), and others questioned whether the observed growth in complexity was the outcome of natural selection or simply, in Maynard Smith’s words, the “obvious and uninteresting explanation” of a sort of random walk away from an immutable barrier of simplicity at the lower extreme How evolution guides complexity.

the driven complexities produced by natural selection begin to plateau.
How evolution guides complexity.


The point of the articles is that mutations + natrual selection are not likely to increase complexity or at best that this is a hot a controversial topic that scientists are discussing. (other mechanisms are proposed)

Honestly I read 2 articles shpuld I read the other 2 or is it more of the same

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would consider the evidence, look at the poll of possible explanations and pick the best.

What evidence?

But sure if I see a “human like” creature that moves at super speeds and lives presents in my tree, and other people form other parts of the world saw the same thing, I would grant the existance of santa clause.

I didn't ask that. You should answer the question I actually asked. Not the one you would have liked that I asked.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's also an article in there which I expect has the potential for you to jump on like a hawk. My advice to you is: read before you reply.

do you even reed what you quote?
In fact, natural selection often leads to ever greater simplicity. And, in many cases, complexity may initially arise when selection is weak or absent.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ads-to-ever-greater-complexity/#ixzz7Ht1ZOONJ

Rather than being driven by selection, they propose that complexity initially arises when selection is weak or absent.

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ads-to-ever-greater-complexity/#ixzz7Ht1pr9we

However, Maynard Smith (1970), Raup et al. (1973), Gould (1989, 1994, 1996), and others questioned whether the observed growth in complexity was the outcome of natural selection or simply, in Maynard Smith’s words, the “obvious and uninteresting explanation” of a sort of random walk away from an immutable barrier of simplicity at the lower extreme How evolution guides complexity.

the driven complexities produced by natural selection begin to plateau.
How evolution guides complexity.


The point of the articles is that mutations + natrual selection are not likely to increase complexity or at best that this is a hot a controversial topic that scientists are discussing. (other mechanisms are proposed)

Honestly I read 2 articles shpuld I read the other 2 or is it more of the same

Hilarious.