Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic 116 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  No it isn't. Data is alignment of magnetic particles. The particles are always there, representing some kind of information, regardless of how much of its space is occupied by coherent "data" stored there deliberately by humans.

  Complexity doesn't refer to the number of bits that can have a 1 or a 0 set. It refers to systems or parts that have relationships and interact with other systems or parts. Random bits on a drive are not interecting with with anything nor do they have any structure to do so. There is no definition of complexity that would even suggest that sectors on a drive with a random value are equally as complex as a drive holding a database or files.
• 

  Viviane

  Caedes, what is at the fringes of the natural universe gives us indications what is outside of it

  "Natural universe" is a meaningless term. We can't see the fringes of the universe.

  The movement, radiation that signals that all that matter has disappeared, out of the universe into a black hole, leaving only it's effects.

  That has nothing to do with your claims or the cosmic background radiation.

  time stands still in these conditions, and you can not be part of the universe if you do not paricipate in its movement through time.

  Math suggests spacetime dilation would be at a maximum. Spacetime flow for observers in different frames of reference would change. In any event, time would most certainly not "stop", whatever that means.

  Remember that we live in a fabric of spacetime that is moving, expanding, and black hole matter has left us.

  What does that even mean, "black hole matter has left us"? Left who? Gone where?

  I know Black holes have nothing to do with the genesis account, but they are part of the ongoing saga of the universe's development, points where time stands still again, because it was so there so dense, so energetic, fast again.

  That sentence makes as much sense as saying "derpa derpa wharrrgrrbl".
• 

  Apognophos

  There is no definition of complexity that would even suggest...

  Physical complexity. Not informational complexity. The whole reason I brought up CPUs (which Caedes then changed to the subject of hard drives for some reason) was as an analogy to the human brain. Neither a computer or a brain is more complex physically when processing information than when it is not.
• 

  Viviane

  Physical complexity. Not informational complexity.

  Information is held by something physical. CPU's must have more physical complexity to do more work. Hard drive (or flash, SSD, SAN, NAS, take your pick) become more pysically complex as they hold more information and perform more task.

  What is your definition of complexity? Physical complexity refers explicitely to things that are connected and interact. Random distribution would at least imply that there are ~ as many non-connected things as there are connected. More things inter-relating with each other is what "complexity" is regardless of whether we are talking about information or purely physical systems.

  I'm very curious what definition of complexity you are using.

  Neither a computer or a brain is more complex physically when processing information than when it is not.

  Yes, they are. Again, complexity refers to inter-relatedness and connections. By any definition and use case I can come up with, there are more connections and structure when processing information when idle or with no power.
• 

  Apognophos

  I'm very curious what definition of complexity you are using.

  Physical complexity. The molecular make-up of the hard drive. You cannot be seriously suggesting that material is being added to a hard drive when it "fills up" with data. It's just magnetic bits being flipped. Likewise, the circuits in the computer are either powered or unpowered, but are equally complex either way.
• 

  Coded Logic

  "Something from nothing" is still totally absurd when one really contemplates it.

  -Apognophos

  It's not absurd. It's merely counter-intuitive . . . just like every other part of quantum mechanics. I recommend you familiarize yourself with the Casimir Effect. Just because some aspect of our universe isn't readily comprehensible to the mind of a layman doesn't mean that it's therefore absurd. And it certainly doesn't give you license to put forth the arguement, "well this one aspect of reality seems absurd to me - so I can postulate whatever absurd thing I like."

  There's a reason science uses reason and evidence. Because our intuitions are tuned only to the scale at which we live. Things going on at scales very small and very large are alien to the hueristic models we use in our everyday lives.

  But is it more absurd than the idea that a self-making universe produced intelligent beings who can in turn create things? Either way you are looking at intelligence forming from nothing.

  Fallacy of false equivication. Starting out with an all powerful creator is NOT the same as a finite intelligence that has slowly formed over billions of years of evolution. Human intelligence has come about by a naturalistic process. There is no such method for Gods to come into existence.
• 

  Viviane

  Physical complexity.

  Ok, so how are you defining complexity?

  The molecular make-up of the hard drive

  That changes as data is written to the drive into forms that are interacted with and they are interacted with. More complexity.

  You cannot be seriously suggesting that material is being added to a hard drive when it "fills up" with data.

  I never suggested anything like that. That's why I am asking you how you are defining "complexity". You seem to be equating it with "how much stuff is there" when that's not at all a definition of complexity.

  It's just magnetic bits being flipped.

  It's physical material having it's properties changed to interact with other physical systems.

  Likewise, the circuits in the computer are either powered or unpowered, but are equally complex either way.

  Again, you're not defining what you mean by "complex". Complexity, in any definition, refers to systems interacting. Unpowered or low usage circuits are not interacting interacting as much.

  Seriously, what definition of "complex" or "complexity" are you using?
• 

  Apognophos

  It's not absurd. It's merely counter-intuitive . . . just like every other part of quantum mechanics.

  I don't mean "absurd" in a way that deprecates the concept. I know that our intuition is suited for the environment we evolved in and it can't be expected to hold true for all environments. I just mean "absurd" in that, as you said, it's counter-intuitive and does not seem satisfying.

  And it certainly doesn't give you license to put forth the arguement, "well this one aspect of reality seems absurd to me - so I can postulate whatever absurd thing I like."

  I think you misunderstood me. I was intending to say that I do not believe there is yet enough evidence that the universe developed that way, without the prompting of a creator, and not enough knowledge to judge the likelihood of a creator existing outside this universe. I do not assert that a creator is equally likely, but only that we can't judge the relative likelihood, thus I stated that we might as well call it 50/50. This was not intended as a serious estimation of chance, as I thought I made clear at the time.

  Starting out with an all powerful creator is NOT the same as a finite intelligence that has slowly formed over billions of years of evolution. Human intelligence has come about by a naturalistic process.

  I never said that a creator formed instantly or that he didn't evolve.

  There is no such method for Gods to come into existence.

  Now who's postulating?
• 

  Apognophos

  Seriously, what definition of "complex" or "complexity" are you using?

  Physical complexity. The arrangement of molecules in the computer or the brain. The amount of information a network contains is constant if all nodes in that network have a value regardless of whether those values have meaning to a human or other intelligence.

  You keep bringing up "interaction". If it's essential for you to know where the interaction is, it's between the molecules making up a compound and between the atoms making up the molecules, and between the sub-atomic particles making up the atoms. Those interactions will of course change when data passes through them, but the number of interactions between particles, the complexity, is not increasing. In order for this to be the case, the network would have to develop new nodes.
• 

  prologos

  We are the fringes of the universe, all we see is the past of the rest. look at the deep space pictures of 12 billion years ago/distant it is packed with galaxies, because the universe was smaller then. smaller than now.

  did somebody say quantum to explain the beginning,-- after an eternity of fluctuations?