Morphic Tide
Well-known member
"Disorder" is, to my understanding, generally held to be synonymous with meaningless complexity. The smoke+ash+heat requires more information to describe than the wood itself, because the ash is not ordered into polymers and repeating multicelular structures. "Complex" does not mean "useful" or "purposeful" or any other thing that belies importance, and "disorder" does not mean "simple".
Meaningless noise is usually going to be more complex than a careful symphony, as the symphony is a very limited set of instructions able to be readily defined by nothing more than the sheet music and a description of the instruments, while the meaningless noise has to have every moment faithfully and precisely recorded because there isn't any meaning that mandates regularity with which to apply shorthand descriptions.
A polymer of length N can be described as just that. To describe its use in the final system, the shape of it must be accounted for, alongside ionization sites, but the broad chemical composition is enormously trivialized because it's a regular polymer, a repeating chain of identical structures. TITAN can be crunched down enormously because it can be described as many repetitions of a few relatively simple structures, you don't have to track each individual amino acid.
Only when you give the odds that something is the case, rather than that an alternative is not the case. You're still arguing "X is unlikely, therefor Y must be true", giving absolutely nothing in concrete physics directly supporting Y in particular. Only a definitional argument based on utterly anthropocentric notions of "complexity" and "purpose". Out-of-hand rejection that the start of reality was akin to our machine learning algorythms, rather than the researchers who do not have a particular design in mind.
Because none of your examples make imperfect replicas of themselves like we've proven with biology. Cancer exists specifically because biology does not self-organize into perfect copies, indicating life in the distant past could not have been just like life today beyond extremely fundamental processes.
What fundamental impossibility is there to a meaningless origin, instead of taking the pit of unknowns as proof of an intelligent origin? Humans are highly prone to ascribing wildly divergent meanings to what other humans make and ascribing motive to natural forces like the weather.
We'll humanize rock formations for looking slightly like a woman's head because a sandstone pillar underwent uneven erosion at its base and declare hexagonal basalt formations to be the work of giants making a causeway. Just because something looks to serve a some purpose doesn't mean it has one.
Neon Genesis Evangelion's ending will no doubt have centuries of man-hours wasted pondering something that the creator explicitly had no particular reason for. It's just a pile of imagery for the sake of having an ending, simply because stories have endings. The details are meaningless visual noise, they're present just to have something on screen.
To quote a bit from a previous post of yours to hammer more on how you're not really understanding what's involved in abiogenesis:
Not all life has chromosomes, they're a structure much more complex than strictly necessary for life as we know it, and the amount of DNA contained in them is vastly larger than any microbial cell without them. How many base pairs did you calculate for? The largest bacterial genomes are around 14 million base pairs, against the human genome having over six billion base pairs. A single human chromosome is extremely vastly more genetics than any bacterium.
You claim to have calculated an extremely high-level late-stage system springing out of the primordial ooze fully formed. You did not make any effort to isolate the irreducible components universal to life as we know it and identify the permutations that could have constituted the original generations to then calculate the large number of different possible initial states to actually define the overall probability of abiogenisis.
Nobody has because, quite simply, we don't entirely know what those must-have components are, nor have a sensible capacity to identify a meaningful sample size of possible initial implementations. There's too many unknowns in how what's already here works and what's shared by everything to make reasonable educated guesses. Which is what makes it a god-in-the-gaps argument, we haven't even pinned down the possibility space yet, and you already jump to specifically intelligent design.
Because there's a bundle of logical issues with intelligent creators that make a mindless "just because" origin like the Big Bang the vastly simpler explanation. A raw event can be boiled down to the bare logical requirements of instantiating reality, whereas a creator that is a meaningful actor must have its capacity as an actor defined in a space absent any reference to define action with.
The arguments LordsFire uses invite regression as The Creator's cognitive apparatus would have to somehow be purposeless despite having the complexity needed to be a rational actor, and this has apparently been totally unaddressed in this thread.