Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8773 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-26-2017 6:46 PM
370 online now:
GDR, Meddle, RAZD (3 members, 367 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,690 Year: 19,296/21,208 Month: 2,055/3,111 Week: 276/574 Day: 72/46 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 1 of 81 (483080)
09-19-2008 10:23 PM


I would like to test out an hypothesis . I call it the Dunsapy Theory
It 's pretty simple, I have had some scientists are other try to break it but so far it's held up. I would like you guys to try.

This is it.

If science did discover how life started and could show it by experiment.
All that, would prove, is that life needed intelligence to make life. A creator.
The only way to prove evolution and no creator,is to have everything the same as it was in the beginning. Then not interfere with it at all.

So what do you think?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Great Debate" topic - Add the "(DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)" to the topic title.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "Great Debate" banner.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-20-2008 12:05 AM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3810
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 2 of 81 (483096)
09-20-2008 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by dunsapy
09-19-2008 10:23 PM


Starting the debate in the PNT forum (first)
If science did discover how life started and could show it by experiment.

All that, would prove, is that life needed intelligence to make life. A creator.

Humans have duplicated many processes found in nature. That certainly doesn't mean that those processes couldn't/didn't happen without human or other intelligent influences.

The only way to prove evolution and no creator,is to have everything the same as it was in the beginning. Then not interfere with it at all.

The origin of life and the subsequent evolution of life are two separate events, although one is required before the other. But the reality of evolution is not dependent on how the origin came to be. There could have been a Godly origin of life, followed by the evolution of life.

Why do you think God couldn't create an original life capable of evolution?

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dunsapy, posted 09-19-2008 10:23 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 3 of 81 (483102)
09-20-2008 12:34 AM


Humans have duplicated many processes found in nature. That certainly doesn't mean that those processes couldn't/didn't happen without human or other intelligent influences.

Life comes from life or intelligence to make life. the materials used could have been created, and by scientists, conducting the experiment can only show creation. The only way to show it could happen from non life with out intelligence is to find a place that has no life , and that is not interfered with . The earth is not that place, because it is contaminated, with life. The only way I can see that you could do this, would be to find a planet, and not go there. But just watch from a distance.

The origin of life and the subsequent evolution of life are two separate events, although one is required before the other. But the reality of evolution is not dependent on how the origin came to be. There could have been a Godly origin of life, followed by the evolution of life.Why do you think God couldn't create an original life capable of evolution?

But then of course that would be creation, a God. If scientists would say there is a God , then that would be something. But you would still have to overcome the the creation of 'kinds' that are mentioned in the bible.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 4 of 81 (483153)
09-20-2008 10:23 AM


dunsapy wrote
But scientists doing the experiment only can show that , it takes intelligence to do it.
Not so.

coyote wrote
When a scientist creates, for example, water from H and O2 in the laboratory that does not prove, nor even suggest, that all water everywhere was created by a scientist, by an intelligence, or in a laboratory. It does show one pathway by which water could be created. That is about all.

Attributing causation is a complete non-sequitur. The events are unrelated.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 5 of 81 (483156)
09-20-2008 10:26 AM


Not so.
When a scientist creates, for example, water from H and O2 in the laboratory that does not prove, nor even suggest, that all water everywhere was created by a scientist, by an intelligence, or in a laboratory. It does show one pathway by which water could be created. That is about all.

Attributing causation is a complete non-sequitur. The events are unrelated.

That maybe ok for water, but water is not life. Life is what we are talking about.
There are plenty of raw materials around.( I think that were made by a creator)


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 6 of 81 (483180)
09-20-2008 4:01 PM


That maybe ok for water, but water is not life. Life is what we are talking about.
vacate wrote
from#459

Scientists however are trying to find out how life *could* arise from non-life. If it happened it didn't happen in one shot; chemicals -> life. The example of scientists making water from H and O is the same process that made life from non-life, but with many many more steps. The point is to not "make life from non life", at least not yet. The point is to find a plausible route that may have taken place to gradually become what we currently define as life.

Science is not attempting to pull a rabbit out of a chemical soup. Chemical reactions take place in nature without a guiding hand, no intelligence is required. Scientists today are simply trying to replicate what they think conditions where like far back in the past for the initial steps along the long path towards life. This does not imply that intelligence was required back then; the chemicals would have reacted regardless. You are confusing the attempts to replicate the conditions of the past with the past needing intelligence to produce results.

Lets say you model the flow of a river on your computer to simulate a real river (Or any similar idea). If your results produce the same flow, depth, curves, or other such similarities this does not change the fact that the river you modeled was a natural process. This is the same as scientists trying to replicate the conditions needed to produce (pre)life.

the point is to find a plausible route that may have taken place to gradually become what we currently define as life.

I understand why science is trying to do this, and experiment with different idea's how life could have happened. I get that. They only way you could find out if that's what really happened , is just observe. But a scientists, getting involved at all, can only show intelligence.

This does not imply that intelligence was required back then; the chemicals would have reacted regardless.

If that is the case then science would not have to get involved. Just observe. But we live in world that is full of life. Life changes the atmosphere, soil conditions etc. So what we have on this earth now, contaminated with life. You cannot get the same conditions now on this earth, that were there before life. By scientists doing the experiment, can only show intelligence was involved. What we know of life now, is that life comes from life. I think science can not ever prove non creator, other than another planet, and not interfering with it.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 7 of 81 (483181)
09-20-2008 4:10 PM


RAZD wrote

Good morning dunsapy.
DNA is also a set of instructions. A blue print of life. A design.
Design can come from natural processes, but you are already diverging away from your original argument.

Let's regroup, and see if you can understand a couple of problems with your "theory" ... from Message 62:

quote:
I would like to test out an hypothesis . I call it the Dunsapy Theory
It 's pretty simple, I have had some scientists are other try to break it but so far it's held up. I would like you guys to try.
This is it.
If science did discover how life started and could show it by experiment.
All that, would prove, is that life needed intelligence to make life. A creator.
The only way to prove evolution and no creator,is to have everything the same as it was in the beginning. Then not interfere with it at all.

Problem #1: the dunsapy "theory" is not a theory, not a scientific theory, one that is based on evidence, explains objective reality and makes predictions about it, and thereby is testable. And no, I would not call it an hypothesis either, as in science an untested theory is considered an hypothesis, but it is still based on evidence, still explains objective reality, and it still makes predictions. It's an assertion, posed as a logical (if/then) question, and what you are "testing" is whether or not your argument holds up as a logical construction.

Problem #2: it is not a logical construction, even though it has the "if/then" words. To be a logical construction you have to have two premises and a conclusion that actually follows from the premises. If you use logical fallacies in your construction then you do not have a logical argument. This is why I posted the link to a page explaining logical fallacies: it was a hint.

In Message 66 coyote showed that what you have is a non-sequitur. Please review non-sequitur and in particular the non-sequitur of Affirming the Consequent:

quote:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A
If humans design life, then life is designed
LIFE
Therefore a designer.

As you can see it is possible to have a whole lot of B that is not A, so the existence of B does not prove the existence of A.

The answer to your question is no, the fact that humans design a situation where life forms does not mean that life had to form from a designed situation. It's really simple: your conclusion is false.

I demonstrated that your logic was faulty with my example of rabbits together with your responses:

(1) The dunsapy assertion: If I put two chemicals on the table and they mate, that means the new chemicals were designed by me.

(2) RAZD: [ms] "If I put two rabbits on a table and they mate, does that mean that I designed the offspring?"

(3) dusnapy: Message 59 "The rabbits are life, life comes from life. This is a natural law."

(4) RAZD: Message 67 "DNA is a chemical. Chemicals come from chemicals. This is a natural law."

dunsapy: Message 69 "DNA is also a set of instructions. A blue print of life. A design."

This is called special pleading plus begging the question: two additional logical fallacies.

Problem #3: understanding when you have been shown to be wrong, and learning from it.

You claim to have talked to "some scientists"

quote:
I have had some scientists are other try to break it but so far it's held up.
Do you mean "some scientist or other"? Just as an aside, it is interesting that you posted the same error in both places, as this means you didn't catch it as being grammatically wrong.

I'll bet whoever you talked to has made arguments similar to the ones you will get here. I'll bet you dismissed them too.

We'll see. Your assertion is falsified, demonstrated to be a logical error, and your conclusion does not follow from the premises.

quote:
All that, would prove, is that life needed intelligence to make life. A creator.
Nope, the fact that humans design a situation where life forms does not mean that life had to form from a designed situation. All A is B does not mean that all B is A.

It is that simple.

Enjoy.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 8 of 81 (483184)
09-20-2008 4:22 PM


reply to RAZD

Problem #1: the dunsapy "theory" is not a theory, not a scientific theory, one that is based on evidence, explains objective reality and makes predictions about it, and thereby is testable. And no, I would not call it an hypothesis either, as in science an untested theory is considered an hypothesis, but it is still based on evidence, still explains objective reality, and it still makes predictions. It's an assertion, posed as a logical (if/then) question, and what you are "testing" is whether or not your argument holds up as a logical construction.

I am testing it out , with a tough crowd :) I don't think it is all that hard to understand. I just think because what the 'theory' says that many in science won't like it.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 9 of 81 (483185)
09-20-2008 4:27 PM


Problem #2: it is not a logical construction, even though it has the "if/then" words. To be a logical construction you have to have two premises and a conclusion that actually follows from the premises. If you use logical fallacies in your construction then you do not have a logical argument. This is why I posted the link to a page explaining logical fallacies: it was a hint.

The logic is simple, if science gets involved, they have shown that intelligence is needed . If they don't get involved and just observe, and life forms from non life then they can show , no creator.


    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3810
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 10 of 81 (483189)
09-20-2008 4:48 PM


It's a "Great Debate" now!
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This is now a "Great Debate" topic, restricted to only two members posting. Those two are Dunsapy and Bluejay.

Any new messages from anyone else other than admins will have their content deleted. Blatant disregard for the "two members only" rule might result in a suspension.

Perhaps the topic will be opened to all later.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "Great Debate" guidelines notes.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "Perhaps..." sentence.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 11 of 81 (483199)
09-20-2008 5:23 PM


Hi bluejay
I'm looking forward to talk to you.
I want some one to really test this idea I have.

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2008 7:07 PM dunsapy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 12 of 81 (483217)
09-20-2008 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by dunsapy
09-20-2008 5:23 PM


Starting Conditions
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

I want some one to really test this idea I have.

Well, I'll do my best.

But, first, I need to make sure I understand exactly what it is you're saying and why it is that you're saying it.

You are arguing that, if a scientist does an experiment in which he or she tests how life arose and is successful at producing life, said experiment is not evidence of a non-intelligent origin of life because it is inherently artificial. Is this correct?

Are you familiar with Miller-Urey or any experiment like it?

If so, do you understand why it is that they chose the specific chemical conditions for their microcosm that they did?

-----

You also claim to have shown this to some other scientists. Did you mean actual researchers, or bloggers on other evolution/creation websites?

So you are aware who you are debating with, I am a PhD student in entomology (bugs), so convincing me of your hypothesis is not the equivalent of validating it scientifically, but failing to convince me will be a good sign of the failing of your argument.

-----

If you have a great deal of interest in abiogenesis, some of the things said in this thread might be useful for you to see. That thread is kind of mess in many places, though, but you can still find good information there.

Edited by Bluejay, : Clarification

Edited by Bluejay, : Added link to AOkid's topic.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 5:23 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 8:23 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 13 of 81 (483225)
09-20-2008 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Blue Jay
09-20-2008 7:07 PM


Re: Starting Conditions
Hi bluejay
You are arguing that, if a scientist does an experiment in which he or she tests how life arose and is successful at producing life, said experiment is not evidence of a non-intelligent origin of life because it is inherently artificial. Is this correct?

Yes that is right.
Are you familiar with Miller-Urey or any experiment like it?

This was the experiment done in 1953.

You also claim to have shown this to some other scientists. Did you mean actual researchers, or bloggers on other evolution/creation websites?

I have talked to scientists in the medical health field and others, and just thinkers.
So far I have not had this idea broken. In some ways I would like to see it happen . I could get back to a normal life. But as it remains I would like, to really test it. If it fails I can take it. :)

So you are aware who you are debating with, I am a PhD student in entomology (bugs), so convincing me of your hypothesis is not the equivalent of validating it scientifically, but failing to convince me will be a good sign of the failing of your argument.

Thats great, an interesting field, of study. you must see on a day be day basis, the incredible amount of design , in the natural world.
I am an artists, I do fine art ( watercolor, digital art, and 3d modeling ) for movies and theater groups etc. I have worked to Mirimax films doing matte paintings etc.
I like science and respect the work they do. I just think when it comes to origin science, they are going in the wrong direction.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2008 7:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2008 8:37 PM dunsapy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 14 of 81 (483226)
09-20-2008 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dunsapy
09-20-2008 8:23 PM


Re: Starting Conditions
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

So far I have not had this idea broken.

I think several people have already provided reasons why the idea isn't a perfectly valid one (pay particular attention to RAZD's argument), but I'll start from the perspective of experimental design.

Miller and Urey set up their apparatus with a mixture of chemicals that they believed closely approximated the early atmosphere. Also, they simulated lightning, which was a potential causative factor in the formation of life, using electrodes.

So, if their model of the ancient atmosphere had been correct, and they had produced life using that model in their apparatus, would you agree that their model would have been a pretty accurate reproduction of the possible origin of life?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 8:23 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dunsapy, posted 09-20-2008 11:16 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 15 of 81 (483240)
09-20-2008 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Blue Jay
09-20-2008 8:37 PM


Re: Starting Conditions
Miller and Urey set up their apparatus with a mixture of chemicals that they believed closely approximated the early atmosphere. Also, they simulated lightning, which was a potential causative factor in the formation of life, using electrodes.

So, if their model of the ancient atmosphere had been correct, and they had produced life using that model in their apparatus, would you agree that their model would have been a pretty accurate reproduction of the possible origin of life


Life changes atmosphere and soil, so how would they know exactly what conditions, were like, before life. Did the scientists set up conditions that they thought life would have a best chance at? Where did these chemicals come from? In doing the experiment, by using intelligence, did they also replicate conditions that would have stopped life from forming?
( like they have found on Mars)
But in the end this only shows that if they were successful, in creating life from non life, that it took intelligence to do so. They could not show that it could happen on it's own. The only way to do that, is to go some where ,that man has not contaminated, and only observe from a distance.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 09-20-2008 8:37 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dunsapy, posted 09-21-2008 1:35 AM dunsapy has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 12:39 PM dunsapy has responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017