Identity/Creativity: Necessary Intermediate Stage

[Justatruthseeker]

Your knowledge of computers is on the same level as your knowledge of evolution.

Quite advanced compared to yours.....

Computers crash because of errors, they don’t change their thinking..... unless of course sone designer inputs new routines.....

Your arguments do nothing but show your lack of understanding of even the basics....

But that’s why you are trying so hard to avoid discussing your theories assumptions that we are more evolved than all the other animals.... you are trapped in your box and can’t think of any way out except to try to avoid reality.... Cognitive dissonance at its finest on display.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

On the other hand, perhaps the entire universe isn't as big or complex as science thinks it is.

Maybe it isn’t. Maybe your interpretation of redshift is flawed and you are then forced to use a Doppler interpretation while claiming at the same time it isn’t the relative velocity but expansion of space causing the redshift. Therefore your belief in distances is flawed and quasars are no longer mystical objects of immense power, but are simply closer and in the normal power range....

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Maybe that’s as flawed as their planetary formation theories...... maybe that’s why Hubble himself didn’t even agree that his results led to an expanding universe and the redshift was caused by something other than Doppler..... it’s pretty bad when the guy you claim invented the theory doesn’t even agree with the interpretation of that theory..... an interpretation he left to others, while never agreeing with their interpretation......

The data would remain the same, but like planetary formation only the interpretation of the data would be incorrect..... just some interpretations of the data lead to the same observation without having to contradict themselves by using an interpretation that relies on relative velocity to determine distances, then claim but it isn’t a velocity at all..... not that I expect those confined in their little boxes to be able to distinguish that contradiction..... or admit to it even if they can.....

 

[ecco]

Anyone that thinks man can describe God when the physical laws we understand did not exist then would be fooling themselves. Including the “Athiests” who think we should be able to explain God using our physical laws....

I go by the descriptions of the people who believe in gods. If I am discussing with a Christian, I will refer to the biblical version of god.

What I personally believe is that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. They are no more real than spiderman or psychic snowflakes.

No, because Athiesm is a religion..... you have a constitutionally protected right to believe in whatever you like. Faith is faith....

When I discuss gods I will use the persons' versions of gods. However, I will insist that words are used within their proper definitions. So, no. Atheism is not a religion and "Faith" is no "faith". I have already pointed out to you that there are two distinctly different definitions of "faith". I have also pointed out that Creos and Fundies like to conflate the usage. You did just that in a comment to another poster and you tried again above.

So science was Thought planets revolves around the earth. Have you refused to update your knowledge?

Why would you post that in response to...

Since you did not specify a bible...
KJV
The Creation of Woman
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

​

Perhaps you can show which bible you prefer and show where it says anything about genes.​

...Were you just ducking and dodging - again?

Try looking up the Hebrew word.... How do you explained the genome to people that have no word for the genome? Flesh of my flesh and bones of my bones? Or from my genomes as we would understand it to be?????

I have no intention of wasting my time looking up Hebrew words. There are many bibles available that are written in English. I am well aware that the original biblical languages are not English. But all you need to do is show the bible you used to deny the word "rib" was used and or mistranslated. Then we can discuss why you think not-rib means genome.

Imagination is imagination. Proposing something doesn’t make it a fact. All their vaunted mathematical skills won’t change fiction into fact....

You don't need to continue to make posts to show your ignorance of the way mathematics is used in defining reality.

Oh no, I’m getting it straight from the horses mouth. It’s your theory that insists one man can be born superior to another due to mutation.

Of course, you must be correct. Every son is dumber than his father.

What, can’t handle your own racists beliefs? Own up to the fact you believe a mutation might make someone’s offspring superior to us some day....

Do you remember I said...

When you make nonsensical comments like that, you just show how little you really understand about the Theory of Evolution (ToE). It also shows that you are getting your information from Creationist web sites.​

You get your information from places like AIG...

Mutations
Do Mutations Drive Evolution?
In the evolutionary model, mutations are hailed as a dominant mechanism for pond-scum-to-peopleevolution and provide “proof ” that the Bible’s history about creation is wrong. But are we to trust the ideas of imperfect, fallible men about how we came into existence?

Mutations and New Genetic Information
If new genetic information—required to build eyes where there are none, for example—does not occur in nature, then evolution is stuck in the water. For evolutionists, the solution comes in the form of mutations. The problem is that the only beneficial mutations ever observed do not add new information to the genome.
​

They preach, you parrot.

See above.... own up to your beliefs that mutations make things better fit for survival. Own up to your beliefs that life advances from simple to more complex.... own up to your beliefs and stop running from them....

I'm not running from my beliefs. My beliefs are based on the accumulated knowledge of man. You, on the other hand, get your knowledge from 6000-year-old myths as acknowledged by your next comment.

My Bible says all men are descended from Adam. That all men are equal in Gods sight regardless if they are slaves or free, Greek or Hebrew.....

Then it should be easy for you to show where in your bible it unequivocally says that.

Now your theory on the other hand insists that mutations can make one superior to another....

At least one of Albert Einstein's abilities was superior to mine.
At least one of Muhammed Ali's abilities was superior to mine.
What is the point you are trying to make?

My Bible says if a master oppresses a slave they can run away and are free.

• Slaves who ran away from oppressive masters were effectively freed (Dt 23:15-16)
• • Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 25:39-43)
  • All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12)
  • Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 15:12-15)
  
  But that’s what happens when you get your information from atheist or evolutionists sites instead of the Bible.....

39If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service
​

Do you really not understand the meaning of the above? When you quote biblical texts you really should understand them. It shouldn't be necessary for an atheist to point out what that verse clearly states.

Translated for 1800's American it means: Hey Southern Boy, don't enslave poor old JimmyBob. Get your slaves from dem that come from that other country. They ain't like us.


ecco previously: You are the one still using a 6000-year-old set of stories as your basis for knowledge. The same set of stories that are taught to very young children.

Except I’m not. I’ve akready argued against the time frame most Christians believe the Bible says.

What time frame is that? Christians seem to be all over the place on that issue. The bible and simple arithmetic clearly show when everything was created:

Ussher deduced that the first day of creation fell upon, October 23, 4004 BC,​

Many thelogians have tried to back away from this in view of the findings of science. I have no idea where you stand on the matter. I have no idea why you would dispute the bible.

Or maybe it’s just you that is understanding the next falsified theory as our knowledge advances. Claiming as each generation does that they are correct, when every single time they have been wrong..... except just like they did you still think this time you got it all figured out...... the arrogance of man..... always in the end wrong and always thinking he is right.....

Well, I guess you got me there.
People thought the earth was flat. Now we know it's spheroidal.
People thought the earth was the center of the universe. That was updated.
Newton stated some things about gravity. Einstein showed he was wrong.
Science thought the continents didn't move. Other scientists showed that continents do move.
Scientists believed the planets were in circular orbits. Now we know they are in elliptical orbits.
Science believed the universe was static. It isn't.

Oh boo hoo science. They always get it wrong. How silly.

It's clear you are against progress and prefer the simplistic Adam & Eve story. I understand.

 

[ecco]

On the contrary, I have stated many times we can not know what a God is like

You quote from the bible. The bible specifies many of the attributes of god. How can you say "we can not know what a God is like"?

 

[ecco]

Quite advanced compared to yours.....

Computers crash because of errors, they don’t change their thinking..... unless of course sone designer inputs new routines.....

It seems you are not aware of the term "AI"

But that’s why you are trying so hard to avoid discussing your theories assumptions that we are more evolved than all the other animals.... you are trapped in your box and can’t think of any way out except to try to avoid reality.... Cognitive dissonance at its finest on display.....

You either missed, or chose to ignore, my post #62:

I don't. Cockroaches have been around for 300,000,000 years as compared to our meager existence of around 200,000 years. They survived the cataclysmic event that doomed the dinosaurs.

Check back with me in half a billion years. I may have changed my mind by then.

​

 

[ecco]

Maybe it isn’t. Maybe your interpretation of redshift is flawed and you are then forced to use a Doppler interpretation while claiming at the same time it isn’t the relative velocity but expansion of space causing the redshift. Therefore your belief in distances is flawed and quasars are no longer mystical objects of immense power, but are simply closer and in the normal power range....

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

Maybe that’s as flawed as their planetary formation theories...... maybe that’s why Hubble himself didn’t even agree that his results led to an expanding universe and the redshift was caused by something other than Doppler..... it’s pretty bad when the guy you claim invented the theory doesn’t even agree with the interpretation of that theory..... an interpretation he left to others, while never agreeing with their interpretation......

The data would remain the same, but like planetary formation only the interpretation of the data would be incorrect..... just some interpretations of the data lead to the same observation without having to contradict themselves by using an interpretation that relies on relative velocity to determine distances, then claim but it isn’t a velocity at all..... not that I expect those confined in their little boxes to be able to distinguish that contradiction..... or admit to it even if they can.....

Now you are resorting to quoting completely out of context"?
There is a big difference between what you quoted...

On the other hand, perhaps the entire universe isn't as big or complex as science thinks it is.

...and what I actually wrote.

The story of an efficient God: Make a whole universe for the sole purpose of making one planet hospitable for Adam & Eve.

On the other hand, perhaps the entire universe isn't as big or complex as science thinks it is. Perhaps it really is just pinholes in a big firmament. At least that would show that God was efficient.

The parts you omitted in bold, are critical to understanding the comment.

One doesn't always need to post an entire quote when responding. However, when what you show and what the original says are very, very different, then it borders on intentional fraud.

 

[Etritonakin]

I recently speculated that a self-aware creator would make something that lacks a complex relationship with its immediate environment whereas all things natural have a complex relationship with their environment. A truck then would sit there and rust unless its creator was around to use it. Then we could see the specific value of the truck to its creator vs the general value as a container of future rust.

Not sure how complete or elegant that distinction is, but at least we are contemplating some such distinction.

Perhaps if one can observe a thing being created we would see that which is artificial vs natural as that which arises out of forethought and is preceded by a single agent's special arrangement/creation of order/matter as part of that creation process. Natural creation takes place through multiple agents in an environment not specially pre-arranged. Again, I'm not sure of the validity of this distinction. It's in the initial stages of me trying it out.

Or maybe the complexity of the created thing is within the object (like a computer) where the complexity of a natural thing is in its environment or the Universe at large. So we get confused by looking at the complex universe as being a container of complexity within itself compared with what is beyond it of which we dont know enough to say.

A self-aware creator -aware of itself and that it is creating -would have the ability to mirror/model some or all of "nature" in memory/imagination -make desired changes to the image/model -and then apply them to nature by interfacing with nature.

However, that self-aware creator would actually be a part of (as with man) -or the whole (as with the "most high" omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) -of nature.

"Artificial" would be that which was not otherwise inevitable.
It would not simply be completely predictable input/output based purely on the attributes of the components, but input/decision based on anything or nothing/output. "Artificial" is nature inevitably wrapping its head around itself -then deciding its own course.

We become aware within an extremely complex body -within an extremely complex environment -of which we as individuals are only a very small portion -so we tend to differentiate between creator (ourselves) and environment. However, we are made of exactly the same things we are able to create with and from -and our abilities are due to how those same things are arranged/configured -so the relationship between creator and created is actually as complex as the creator must be to do that which it is able at any point to the environment.

An original "most high", all-inclusive self-aware creator would be self and environment in one -the difference between self and environment being logical separation between processor and processed -but all made of the same basic thing -which would begin with the most simple states possible.

It would seem that there is no actual "sitting around" in reality. There is always motion somehow -and permanence would have to come by consistent refreshing of a particular state.

In actuality -whether considering self-awareness or not, "The Almighty" could not have initiated itself/himself -"The Eternal" could not possibly have created itself/himself.
That which was simply was -and its interrelationship would logically have begun and increased in complexity before it became complexly self-aware, able to say "I AM" -or decide its own course after being able to consider and then change an accurate image of itself.

Forgot where I was going with this....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I go by the descriptions of the people who believe in gods. If I am discussing with a Christian, I will refer to the biblical version of god.

What I personally believe is that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. They are no more real than spiderman or psychic snowflakes.

God put into words for man’s pitiful mind to try to comprehend. Words that have no real meaning to a being existing before any of our physical laws we use to describe things existed.....

That’s why even very few scientists speculate on what things were like before the BB, because our physical laws did not exist then and it would all be fantasy to try to describe it.

Yet you have no problem believing in a singularity that can’t be described by physics.....

So you then agree singularities are no more teal than Spider-Man or physic fairies.....

When I discuss gods I will use the persons' versions of gods. However, I will insist that words are used within their proper definitions. So, no. Atheism is not a religion and "Faith" is no "faith". I have already pointed out to you that there are two distinctly different definitions of "faith". I have also pointed out that Creos and Fundies like to conflate the usage. You did just that in a comment to another poster and you tried again above.

First Amendment | American Atheists

“Atheism is not a religion, but it does “take[] a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.”6 For that reason, it qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection...... Though the Second Circuit ruled against the atheists’ RFRA claim, it is notable that the court was willing to entertain the challenge at all. Neither the Second Circuit nor the lower court which first dismissed the case questioned the ability of atheists to make a claim under RFRA.11 If this posture is followed by other courts, it would appear that atheism/secularism may be treated as the equivalent of religion in most legal disputes.“

Why would you post that in response to...

Since you did not specify a bible...
KJV
The Creation of Woman
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

​

Perhaps you can show which bible you prefer and show where it says anything about genes.​

...Were you just ducking and dodging - again?

Ahh so creationists can never update knowledge as knowledge updates? Do words today have the same meaning they always do, or do we update meaning to reflect advancements in knoeledge? I know you like to complain creationists never update, then complain when creationists update....

I have no intention of wasting my time looking up Hebrew words. There are many bibles available that are written in English. I am well aware that the original biblical languages are not English. But all you need to do is show the bible you used to deny the word "rib" was used and or mistranslated. Then we can discuss why you think not-rib means genome.

So your knowledge will stay stagnant, got it...

You don't need to continue to make posts to show your ignorance of the way mathematics is used in defining reality.

I know how it’s used. But then you think dividing by zero is perfectly legit....

Of course, you must be correct. Every son is dumber than his father.

Only you are complaining that the son is updating his knowledge while insisting he doesn’t do so...

Do you remember I said...

When you make nonsensical comments like that, you just show how little you really understand about the Theory of Evolution (ToE). It also shows that you are getting your information from Creationist web sites.​

You get your information from places like AIG...

Mutations
Do Mutations Drive Evolution?
In the evolutionary model, mutations are hailed as a dominant mechanism for pond-scum-to-peopleevolution and provide “proof ” that the Bible’s history about creation is wrong. But are we to trust the ideas of imperfect, fallible men about how we came into existence?

Mutations and New Genetic Information
If new genetic information—required to build eyes where there are none, for example—does not occur in nature, then evolution is stuck in the water. For evolutionists, the solution comes in the form of mutations. The problem is that the only beneficial mutations ever observed do not add new information to the genome.
​

They preach, you parrot.

No, the Grants preached, you didn’t listen to their sermon....

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

“New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.”

I'm not running from my beliefs. My beliefs are based on the accumulated knowledge of man. You, on the other hand, get your knowledge from 6000-year-old myths as acknowledged by your next comment.

Yes I know, knowledge we can’t update according to you......

At least one of Albert Einstein's abilities was superior to mine.
At least one of Muhammed Ali's abilities was superior to mine.
What is the point you are trying to make?

So Muhammad was superior to you? So own up to your beliefs. A man can be born superior to another.... as your theory dictates and so belief in superiority of one over another is a natural belief....

39If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service
​

Do you really not understand the meaning of the above? When you quote biblical texts you really should understand them. It shouldn't be necessary for an atheist to point out what that verse clearly states.

Translated for 1800's American it means: Hey Southern Boy, don't enslave poor old JimmyBob. Get your slaves from dem that come from that other country. They ain't like us.

But you ignored where if a master treated a slavery unjustly he was allowed to run off and considered to be free.... so they didn’t allow mistreatment as you liked to imply earlier?????

[quote{
ecco previously: You are the one still using a 6000-year-old set of stories as your basis for knowledge. The same set of stories that are taught to very young children.[/quote]
No, I’m trying to update, your complaining because I am....

What time frame is that? Christians seem to be all over the place on that issue. The bible and simple arithmetic clearly show when everything was created:

Ussher deduced that the first day of creation fell upon, October 23, 4004 BC,​

Many thelogians have tried to back away from this in view of the findings of science. I have no idea where you stand on the matter. I have no idea why you would dispute the bible.

Yes, if everyone ignores time dilation in an accelerating universe.....

Well, I guess you got me there.
People thought the earth was flat. Now we know it's spheroidal.
People thought the earth was the center of the universe. That was updated.
Newton stated some things about gravity. Einstein showed he was wrong.
Science thought the continents didn't move. Other scientists showed that continents do move.
Scientists believed the planets were in circular orbits. Now we know they are in elliptical orbits.
Science believed the universe was static. It isn't.

Oh boo hoo science. They always get it wrong. How silly.

It's clear you are against progress and prefer the simplistic Adam & Eve story. I understand.

And yet you object to Christians updating their knowledge while reserving only that right for yourself.....

I’m trying to update it with knowledge of the genome. It’s you that is objecting to Doing the very thing you claim you don’t want us doing, remaining static. So then you complain because we are updating..... Just can’t make an atheist happy.... update to modern knowledge and he complains you are updating and insists you don’t....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Now you are resorting to quoting completely out of context"?
There is a big difference between what you quoted...

...and what I actually wrote.


The parts you omitted in bold, are critical to understanding the comment.

One doesn't always need to post an entire quote when responding. However, when what you show and what the original says are very, very different, then it borders on intentional fraud.

Your claims of pinholes were irrelevant as to whether or not the universe is actually as big or smaller than claimed... if you want to believe the world is flat, be my guest. Don’t expect me to buy into your delusion....

So why then run from a discussion of whether the universe is actually as big as believed and if redshift is actually what it is claimed it is?????

Because without bringing pinholes into it you can’t justify your claims????? Wasn’t aware the Bible claimed pinholes, perhaps you could point me to that verse or verses????? So it’s your claim, your burden of proof pinholes have anything to do with either of our views to the size of the universe....

Talk about fraud and taking things out of context. Don’t believe I’ve ever once claimed pinholes???? So why bring up pinholes in a question of size since apparently neither one of us believes pinholes are relevant....??????

 

[tas8831]

Certainly not anything about "habitual zones" which I have never discussed.

I think habitual zones are where you find allies in the genetic strand that are caused by mating.

 

[tas8831]

Why would you expect me to be able to show you by the laws of physics currently operating, a being that existed before those laws came into operation?

I can no more do that than you can describe the beginning of the universe where all the physics break down......

Physics as we understand it does not apply....

Oh no, I recognize my belief is based on faith and is a religion. You are the one insisting yours is science.... don’t be upset because I recognize belief in extraterrestrial life is also based upon faith and is a religion too....

So no evidence that your ancient middle eastern deity is or was ever real.

Got it.

 

[tas8831]

So you are unable to support your false belief that tests used in a court of law are like the tests used to compare human and chimp. Understood.

I already showed that - not surprised you ignored it/couldn't deal with it/are lying about it - that is what your posting history shows you do.

Except it’s not me insisting that we can randomly compare any matches found regardless of their true placement and function and think we can say they are similar.....

Yes, it is only you.

Here is a link to Google Scholar:

Google Scholar

Here is a ink to PubMed:

Home - PubMed - NCBI

Please find 5 examples of anyone not a creationist doing what you claim is done, or be exposed, yet again, as a dishonest hack troll.

Especially when even you supposedly know that a sequence in one place has a different function than the same sequence elsewhere.... it’s you insisting against everything we know of the genome that it’s location in the genome is irrelevant by randomly comparing random segments.....

You are as clueless as ever. Keep it up - you make creationists look like.... creationists.

 

[tas8831]

You quote from the bible. The bible specifies many of the attributes of god. How can you say "we can not know what a God is like"?

Seems like the most 'important' of His attributes are jealousy, spite, and His thirst for blood - even that of fetuses. And lets not forget foreskins...

 

[wellwisher]

From the human perspective, we see that "nature" will follow its present course based on its present arrangement and characteristics of its present components -which are themselves based on smaller components with specific characteristics -UNTIL the development of true conscious decision coupled with mechanisms necessary to alter the otherwise-inevitable course of nature.

Only then could certain things become possible -which would themselves be indicative of an identity and creativity.

As human (and previous) identity and creativity are believed by some to be purely natural developments, it would stand to reason that they were inevitable developments which required no conscious decision.

However, our identity and creativity developed/were developed within an already-extremely-complex environment -and we had absolutely nothing to do with the process of creating that environment or ourselves. Furthermore, by the time we have any decision-making power or personal identity, we ourselves are already extremely complex and capable -essentially mass-produced before our personal identity is initiated -after which we learn to use our bodies and minds.

As that which presently exists is an arrangement of that which existed before, it stands to reason that what is true from our perspective is true of the whole -an all-inclusive perspective -and that between the most simple state possible and the present, similar developments in similar order were necessary to alter the otherwise inevitable course of nature to that which is extremely and purposefully complex.

In other words, it would be perfectly "natural" -even necessary -for "everything" to have naturally developed an original identity and creativity in order to bring the universe and ourselves into being from initial simplicity.

An original, however, would necessarily be involved as increasingly able in becoming more complex and able -not able to decide to exist or develop, but increasingly responsible for every possible decision which required identity and creativity -certain things becoming possible only after becoming able to realize "I AM".

In chemistry there is a concept called free energy, or Gibb's Free Energy, after the originator of the concept. Free energy G is connected to entropy S and enthalpy H. The equation is shown below. The term T stands for temperature. Enthalpy H is a measure of the internal energy within substances. Entropy S is, among other things, a measure of complexity. For the sake of this topic and simplicity,I will limit entropy S to complexity.

ΔGº = ΔHº – TΔSº

If you look at the human body or the body of any living thing down to cells, they are all composed of stored energy value. This energy value is connected to the organic compounds needed for life. For example, we can burn body fat to give off energy. Our bodies are a store house of energy value, from muscle, to fat, as well as cell membranes and cellular protein. This energy value is connected to enthalpy H.

Since our body is able to burn any organic energy molecule of the body, but it nevertheless chooses to stores energy, for structural and reservoir components, we exist as a constant source of H. This means we have extra free energy G; G=H. To use up this free energy, without burning up the energy value H defined by the body, there will be changes in entropy S. As S increases, (minus term TS), so the free energy can lower, complexity increases, as a way to balance out the storage of H.

The T term is temperature. Warm blooded critters have a higher body temperature. If we compare cold and warmed blooded bodies, the change in S for complexity, in warm blooded critters, does not have to be as drastic to balance out the same amount of H. Warmed blooded critter bodies add less complexity, all else being equal, because of their higher body temperature. We are closer to steady state.

As an animal grows, from baby to adult, G is increasing due to the increasing storage of energy H in the growing body parts. This ever increasing H, is driving the S to increase, allowing the balancing complexity to increase at the same time. We become more complex in body and behavior. We will reproduce somewhere near when we get to our steady state body size adulthood. This is where S is getting closer to its maximum, allowing for some extra entropy S, for mutation changes in offspring DNA fertilization. This adds complexity to molecules inside the female. The pregnancy size and body fat boost is there to add more S complexity

Dinosaurs were interesting. They got huge and therefore stored a lot of H. Many were also cold blooded. These two things, combined, means the large H of the dinosaur body generated a lot of entropy potential or S. Their higher level of internal complexity was good at first. Much went into the complex wiring of the evolving brain as well as changes in offspring. But eventually too much size induced complexity, can becomes a downfall, since this can lead to lack of coordination of parts.

Nature downsized the critters and also went toward warm blooded, so the S term could become smaller. This means the critter body is closer to steady state and better able to maintain mostly practical changes in complexities.

When we get older, the body will get a middle age spread, muscle mass declines in favor of body fat. This is causing H to increase inducing further complexity associated with body changes called aging. Theoretically, evolution could reach a point where the body H reaches a steady state and the S changes only through others means; metabolism, not connected to complexity. This would means no need to add any further changes in complexity; entropy of aging. We could live forever.

 

[sealchan]

A self-aware creator -aware of itself and that it is creating -would have the ability to mirror/model some or all of "nature" in memory/imagination -make desired changes to the image/model -and then apply them to nature by interfacing with nature.

However, that self-aware creator would actually be a part of (as with man) -or the whole (as with the "most high" omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) -of nature.

"Artificial" would be that which was not otherwise inevitable.
It would not simply be completely predictable input/output based purely on the attributes of the components, but input/decision based on anything or nothing/output. "Artificial" is nature inevitably wrapping its head around itself -then deciding its own course.

We become aware within an extremely complex body -within an extremely complex environment -of which we as individuals are only a very small portion -so we tend to differentiate between creator (ourselves) and environment. However, we are made of exactly the same things we are able to create with and from -and our abilities are due to how those same things are arranged/configured -so the relationship between creator and created is actually as complex as the creator must be to do that which it is able at any point to the environment.

An original "most high", all-inclusive self-aware creator would be self and environment in one -the difference between self and environment being logical separation between processor and processed -but all made of the same basic thing -which would begin with the most simple states possible.

It would seem that there is no actual "sitting around" in reality. There is always motion somehow -and permanence would have to come by consistent refreshing of a particular state.

In actuality -whether considering self-awareness or not, "The Almighty" could not have initiated itself/himself -"The Eternal" could not possibly have created itself/himself.
That which was simply was -and its interrelationship would logically have begun and increased in complexity before it became complexly self-aware, able to say "I AM" -or decide its own course after being able to consider and then change an accurate image of itself.

Forgot where I was going with this....

I do that too...especially when talking about stuff at the highest level...I was having a little trouble following what you are saying. I have to go back and re-read the original post and re-think. Sometimes it means I've headed in the wrong direction in my own mind.

The trick with this sort of topic is to ground one's intuitions firmly in the metaphors that they always reference. As soon as we start abstracting intuitively without reference to the bodily metaphors that our abstract ideas come from we can enter a space-less-timeless void where thought is a little too free to wander and i have often gotten lost.

For me it is a tricky subject to understand the difference between what is created and what is not especially as some want to claim that the whole Universe is something created by a someone. The problem for me is that this is self-referential and that to say the Universe is created threatens to undo the very meaning this statement. Without a way to distinguish between the created and the "natural" the very idea becomes useless and meaningless. It is equivalent to "All Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan."

The origin and source of the Universe as a whole is a great place to create intuitive philosophies precisely because it provides a sort of mouse hole out of the walls of our practical experience and into another realm where we can feel free from the constraints of common understanding and even, to some extent, common sense. Such philosophizing is deeply gratifying and useful for re-imagining the world especially when it becomes deeply mired in its own sense of futility.

My imaginings regarding the Nothing-Yet of Infinite Potential was that if such were a personality then It would immediately be a lonely one who had no measure against which to objectively determine its own power, knowledge or value. Its primary motivation would be to prove to itself It did, in fact, exist at all. In so doing, creation would spill out...but even that would not satisfy without a truly Other being to second guess It and also to validate It.

But clearly this is all a projection of my own psyche. If I were the Creator, I would be afraid to be alone and unable to measure my power or value. I would be concerned that I was merely a hallucination alone in a vast nothing. My creating would be a cosmic displacement of my true underlying desire to be known by some Other.

But all such musings are projections as we have only the vast range of our human experience and ideas with which to venture out into the mystery of the unknown.

 

[sealchan]

"Artificial" would be that which was not otherwise inevitable.
It would not simply be completely predictable input/output based purely on the attributes of the components, but input/decision based on anything or nothing/output. "Artificial" is nature inevitably wrapping its head around itself -then deciding its own course.

So here is a nice little self-enclosed Universe of a thought that requires unpacking.

How do we distinguish between a "completely predictable" outcome from a "decision" when we have, for example, things like the weather? Is there a decision being made by a weather deity that makes it hard for meteorologists to predict the weather?

Some scientists and philosophers believe that it is in the nature of complex, adaptive systems that they follow rules but even then they are unpredictable due to the nature of non-linear dynamics. This would seem to blur the distinction between natural and artificial.

 

[ecco]

Yet you have no problem believing in a singularity that can’t be described by physics....

There is evidence for a "singularity". There is none for a god.

So you then agree singularities are no more teal than Spider-Man or physic fairies.....

I'll not respond to your intentionally misrepresenting my comments other than to point out that you intentionally misrepresented my comments.

First Amendment | American Atheists

“Atheism is not a religion, but it does “take[] a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.”6 For that reason, it qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection...... Though the Second Circuit ruled against the atheists’ RFRA claim, it is notable that the court was willing to entertain the challenge at all. Neither the Second Circuit nor the lower court which first dismissed the case questioned the ability of atheists to make a claim under RFRA.11 If this posture is followed by other courts, it would appear that atheism/secularism may be treated as the equivalent of religion in most legal disputes.“

I know “Atheism is not a religion". What's your point?

Were you trying to sidestep addressing my comments: "Faith" is not "faith". I have already pointed out to you that there are two distinctly different definitions of "faith". I have also pointed out that Creos and Fundies like to conflate the usage. You did just that in a comment to another poster and you tried again above.

Ahh so creationists can never update knowledge as knowledge updates? Do words today have the same meaning they always do, or do we update meaning to reflect advancements in knoeledge? I know you like to complain creationists never update, then complain when creationists update....

Well,I guess you are right. Most creationists these days no longer insist that the earth is flat. Some even insist that a day is not a day.

However, what does that have to do with comments about Adam's rib and knowledge of genetics in the bible (whichever unspecified bible you use).
...Were you just ducking and dodging - again?

ecco previously:
But all you need to do is show the bible you used to deny the word "rib" was used and or mistranslated. Then we can discuss why you think not-rib means genome.​

So your knowledge will stay stagnant, got it...

Once again, your response does not address my comment.

...Were you just ducking and dodging - again?

I know how it’s used. But then you think dividing by zero is perfectly legit....

Why would you post a falsehood? Don't bother answering. That's what people do when even ducking and dodging isn't enough.

Only you are complaining that the son is updating his knowledge while insisting he doesn’t do so...

Another duck and dodge. As you well know, we were discussing genetics, not education.

No, the Grants preached, you didn’t listen to their sermon....

Dodging my comment that you obviously get your information from places like AIG...

So Muhammad was superior to you?

I did not say that. I'll not respond to your intentionally misrepresenting my comments other than to point out that you intentionally misrepresented my comments.

But you ignored where if a master treated a slavery unjustly he was allowed to run off and considered to be free.... so they didn’t allow mistreatment as you liked to imply earlier?????

Sure they did...

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.​

...as long as the slave didn't die.

If you want to argue that your bible gives mixed messages and is often self-contradictory, I won't disagree with you.

ecco previously: You are the one still using a 6000-year-old set of stories as your basis for knowledge. The same set of stories that are taught to very young children.​

No, I’m trying to update, your complaining because I am....

Pretending that it was not a rib from Adam and pretending that whatever it was implied a knowledge of genetics, is not "updating". It is twisting the actual verse to fit your own little agenda.

ecco previously:
Ussher deduced that the first day of creation fell upon, October 23, 4004 BC,​

Yes, if everyone ignores time dilation in an accelerating universe.....

If you want to state that time dilation had an effect on Ussher's calculations then you are proving, once again, that your knowledge of science comes from the likes of AIG.

Actually, I don't think that even AIG would make such a ridiculous comment.

And yet you object to Christians updating their knowledge while reserving only that right for yourself...

Not Christians, creos and fundies. Did you forget what you acknowledged earlier...

I know you like to complain creationists never update, then complain when creationists update...

Most Christians do accept science.

I’m trying to update it with knowledge of the genome. It’s you that is objecting to Doing the very thing you claim you don’t want us doing, remaining static. So then you complain because we are updating..... Just can’t make an atheist happy.... update to modern knowledge and he complains you are updating and insists you don’t....

Trying to conflate the biblical story of the creation of Eve with genetics isn't updating knowledge. All you are doing is twisting the actual verse to fit your own little agenda.


I've lost count of how many times I've had to use the phrase "ducking and dodging".
I've lost count of how many times I've had to use the word "twisting".
I've lost count of how many times I've had to write about you "intentionally misrepresenting my comments".

 

[ecco]

Your claims of pinholes were irrelevant as to whether or not the universe is actually as big or smaller than claimed
So why then run from a discussion of whether the universe is actually as big as believed and if redshift is actually what it is claimed it is?????

We were not discussing redshift. You made a comment to etritonakin...

we agree the entire universe has been fine tuned for life on earth.

I responded by pointing out that an entire fine-tuned universe to support just one planet was silly at best...

The story of an efficient God: Make a whole universe for the sole purpose of making one planet hospitable for Adam & Eve.

I then continued the sarcasm by stating that maybe the bible was right...

On the other hand, perhaps the entire universe isn't as big or complex as science thinks it is. Perhaps it really is just pinholes in a big firmament. At least that would show that God was efficient.

You quoted me out of context to make it sound like I was the one who believed the universe is really small.

In the future, when addressing comments to you, I'll try to remember that I must carefully specify when obvious sarcasm is obvious sarcasm.

 

[ecco]

I think habitual zones are where you find allies in the genetic strand that are caused by mating.

"allies" "alleles" "habitual zones" "cohabitation zones" it's all just so overwhelmingly complicated - it boggles the mind.



Now we will wait for justatruthseeker to point out that I'm easily confused.

 

[ecco]

For the sake of this topic and simplicity,I will limit entropy S to complexity.

For the sake of this topic and simplicity, you should limit your comments to "GodDidIt"