Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 3:14 AM
384 online now:
bluegenes, Dredge, frako, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (6 members, 378 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,439 Year: 10,045/21,208 Month: 3,132/2,674 Week: 548/961 Day: 10/151 Hour: 4/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56Next
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 46 of 81 (483879)
09-24-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by dunsapy
09-24-2008 3:09 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

People are missing the point here.

"People"? Yay! I'm plural! :)

dunsapy writes:

My theory is just about the experiment itself, not about the results.

I know that.

My arguments (so far) have all been about experimental design.

Let me try it again:

If you were to sculpt a tree from clay, you would have shown that intelligent design is a method by which the shape of a tree can be made. If you agree that this is Dunsapy Theory, then I have no argument.

However, you have claimed that Dunsapy Theory applies across the board: all lab experiments only show that intelligence can produce the results of the experiment.

But, in the tree-sculpting example, the methods for one example (the tree sculpture) are not applicable to the methods for the other example (the actual tree), so the process of sculpting a tree does not provide any insights into the way the shape of the actual tree was actually made. In other words, the experiment is irrelevant to the natural process.

So, science does not use a method analogous to sculpting in origins studies. Instead, they do the best they can to set up a process that is similar to the actual methods used in nature. So, it's like setting up an experiment to mimic the growth of a seed into a tree.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix "bold" code.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:09 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 10:24 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 47 of 81 (483926)
09-24-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
09-24-2008 4:39 PM


Bluejay
you have been good to me, indulging my idea's here
Thank you for that.
We have a parent, that has been doing down hill, now is really going.
I'm going to leave off. He in another town , so for the next while I will be coming and going for days at a time . I think.
So I wanted to let you know so you are not waiting for answers that might not come .
Some how these things aren't that important.
but thanks
Dunsapy
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 09-24-2008 4:39 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-25-2008 1:27 PM dunsapy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 81 (483981)
09-25-2008 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by dunsapy
09-24-2008 10:24 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

I understand.

We can continue this later.

Thanks


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 10:24 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by dunsapy, posted 09-29-2008 7:04 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 49 of 81 (484589)
09-29-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
09-25-2008 1:27 PM


Hi bluejay.
I'm back. We will be going to the funeral this weekend. So I will be there for a few days then.

I was thinking about, what, I could say to you, about what we were discussing.
I was trying to attack my theory, from all angles. I have more confidence then ever about it.
By scientists doing the experiment , does not show that it could have happened on it's own.
Science does not know the conditions at the start to life,( what they know now could change with more research)
Even if they succeeded, that in itself does not say how it actually happened, ( it just says how they did it)( Dunsapy theory)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-25-2008 1:27 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2008 3:58 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 50 of 81 (484656)
09-30-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by dunsapy
09-29-2008 7:04 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

Sorry to hear about your father(?).

But, welcome back.

dunsapy writes:

By scientists doing the experiment , does not show that it could have happened on it's own.
Science does not know the conditions at the start to life,( what they know now could change with more research)
Even if they succeeded, that in itself does not say how it actually happened, ( it just says how they did it)

Okay.

You seem to be arguing two different things, and I don't think I've done a good job distinguishing my arguments about them. Here's what I am seeing in your arguments (I may be exaggerating them just a little bit, just to make them sound more clear):

  1. Not all the evidence from the distant past is recoverable, so we will never be able to gain a complete picture of the conditions on the early earth.

  2. Doing an experiment interferes with the autonomy of the system, so that the processes that occur in the system will be significantly different in the lab than in the “real world.”

Let me state my position clearly:

  1. I agree that we will probably never infallibly prove what the exact details of the early earth’s environmental conditions were. That is a well-known and long-held tenet of scientific inquiry.

    In principle, if the conditions of the early earth were known, we could certainly show how they could spontaneously produce life by simulating those exact conditions in the laboratory.

    However, in practice, we can only show how conditions that are statistically similar to early-earth conditions can spontaneously produce life, for a variety of reasons: (1) we most likely will never actually figure out the exact conditions of the early earth, even with massive technological advancement; (2) statistics don’t really have the power to determine whether our experimental conditions are exactly identical in their effects to the conditions we are trying to duplicate (even if we know them exactly); and, (3) we might (and probably will) miss something, at least on our first few (dozen) times.

    The point of science is not really to find actual truth, but to narrow the discrepancy between "practice" and "principle." As knowledge of and evidence for a specific theory increase, the likelihood that the theory is correct also increases. In many cases, the likelihood of correctness can be (and has been) elevated so high that it is virtually indistinguishable from absolute certainty. Thus, you'll often see scientists who regard evolution (a theory) as an absolute fact, simply because the evidence and results are so accurate and so legion that there is no practical reason to even consider the miniscule possibility that it's incorrect.

    Now, nobody is going to contend that abiogenesis has reached that level of accuracy. But, to extrapolate the current standing of the theory into the indefinite future in an attempt to put some sort of boundaries on what we may or not be able to figure out is really an invalid approach, because we have no idea what the actual or practical constraints on future science will be.

  2. I disagree that experiments inherently compromise the integrity of the system being questioned, at least in principle. It is, in principle, possible to simulate all meaningful factors in a laboratory experiment.

    Consider an airplane or a space shuttle, which flies kilometers off the ground. It maintains the same (or very similar) atmospheric pressure, temperature and chemical composition as it first collected on the ground throughout its flight, even though the conditions outside the windows are very different in regards to all three of those factors.

    So, if controlled conditions can maintain an environment like the surface conditions (in regards to temperature, pressure and chemical composition), why can they not maintain an environment like the early-earth conditions? I will grant you that maintaining early earth conditions would be a much more complex proposition than maintaining the atmosphere of an airplane, but this doesn’t inherently imply that maintenance of more complex conditions is impossible. It is fully possible (though perhaps not currently practical) to maintain an environment wherein temperature, air pressure, chemical composition, air currents, seismic activity, photoperiod, etc., are very similar to their state in the early earth.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by dunsapy, posted 09-29-2008 7:04 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 81 (484657)
09-30-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by dunsapy
09-22-2008 9:45 PM


Re: Experiments
Hi, Dunsapy.

There is one other point that I'd like to address, based on this example that you brought up:

dunsapy writes:

If a volcano erupted and darkened the sky for six months, in the year 12 of the millions of years, would you replicate that.

There are two things to consider with this:

  • If a puddle of chemicals that is haphazardly zapped and/or UV-irradiated produces life, then this is definitive proof of the principle that life can arise from non-life without guidance, and the only question remaining would be the exact way it happened in nature.

  • We know that life is still present on earth, so it’s not too much of a stretch to assume that life survived anything that happened between its inception and today, so, unless a volcano eruption is needed to complete the formation of a cell, there’s really no need to consider it.

I have tried to explain experimental design several times already.

You seem to see the experiment as a scientist carefully manipulating the system until it does what he wants it to, and he publishes a paper showing how he produced the results that he wanted.

But, in actuality (at least in cases like Miller-Urey), it’s more akin to a scientist saying, “let’s see what happens when we throw this in there.” You can hardly group that with “intelligent design,” don’t you think? There really isn’t any intelligence involved in the processes that occur inside the experimental container: they are effectively outside of the scientist’s control.

Now, it may come to a point where we realize that life required an extremely specific sequence of events to happen in a very precise manner in order for life to form, but I personally doubt that this is the case. If such a circumstance comes to pass, then the carefully-choreographed jolts, irradiations and other interferences that a scientist would have to simulate to make life could be seen as potentially supporting Dunsapy Theory.

On the other hand, if life forms rather readily under the correct circumstances, without any need for a specific regime of precision stimuli along the way, it would be very difficult for Dunsapy Theory to receive any sort of credibility. If life forms from chemicals just sitting in a pond, then there is no need to replicate volcanoes and earthquakes and varying wind currents, because we will have shown that such things are not necessary, and because we have ample observational evidence to show that life can survive such traumas.

I do not personally think we’ll find that the recipe for life includes, “zap with lightning, then stir, then let sit for seven thousand years, then zap again, then dilute, and shake with a 4-minute earthquake, etc...” I tend to think the process was much more gradualistic and much less reliant on a precision regime of coincidences.

But, if the exact regime and sequence of interferences turns out to be crucial, scientists will have to incorporate all sorts of experimental controls to ensure that their results are applicable. But, that doesn’t bother me: science is very good at figuring out how to make controls.

-----

Well, now that I've written a novel (and it's sequel), I guess I'll get to wait a week for you to get it all read! :)

-----

Edited by Bluejay, : Added tip about editing.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dunsapy, posted 09-22-2008 9:45 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dunsapy, posted 09-30-2008 8:55 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 52 of 81 (484680)
09-30-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
09-30-2008 4:30 PM


Re: Experiments
But, in actuality (at least in cases like Miller-Urey), it’s more akin to a scientist saying, “let’s see what happens when we throw this in there.” You can hardly group that with “intelligent design,” don’t you think? There really isn’t any intelligence involved in the processes that occur inside the experimental container: they are effectively outside of the scientist’s control

actually this is exactly what intelligent design is. Sometimes you know how to go about , doing the experiment. Sometimes you guess, and it seems a lot of the time it's by mistake in the lab. :)

But the results are all intelligent design. You have set up the conditions, you are trying different things, even if you accidentally , mix something, you have still set up artificial conditions.( this accident may not have been possible out side the lab.)


Now, it may come to a point where we realize that life required an extremely specific sequence of events to happen in a very precise manner in order for life to form, but I personally doubt that this is the case. If such a circumstance comes to pass, then the carefully-choreographed jolts, irradiations and other interferences that a scientist would have to simulate to make life could be seen as potentially supporting Dunsapy Theory.

Science does not know how complicated , or how precise , things have to be to make life come about. They could be 100's of years from even coming close. They just don't know.
They may just find that they are unable to do it at all. ( though the bible does say that it maybe possible for man to do these types of things) ( I don't know if you knew the bible said that or not )

Bluejay the theory is correct, I would not be banging my head against the wall, as I have, if I was not totally convinced.
I have been attacked sometimes more than the theory has. :)

On the other hand, if life forms rather readily under the correct circumstances, without any need for a specific regime of precision stimuli along the way, it would be very difficult for Dunsapy Theory to receive any sort of credibility. If life forms from chemicals just sitting in a pond, then there is no need to replicate volcanoes and earthquakes and varying wind currents, because we will have shown that such things are not necessary, and because we have ample observational evidence to show that life can survive such traumas.

This is true. But my theory does say if left alone, and in the uncontaminated place, these things happened and produced life from non life, this the only way science could show this to be true. But life forms in a pond on earth, does not mean they are the start of life, they could be just part of life.

But, if the exact regime and sequence of interferences turns out to be crucial, scientists will have to incorporate all sorts of experimental controls to ensure that their results are applicable. But, that doesn’t bother me: science is very good at figuring out how to make controls.

This is true, science is good at that type of thing.
I am not sure that science will actually make life from non life.
I am much more sure that science will not find life on other planets.
The earth is just too well setup for life,as compared to other planets, found so far.
We are finding now, that even little changes can cause great havoc. Even in a protected planet like ours.

Anyway do you think you can accept my theory so far?

I have some other ideas that go along with this you maybe interested in ?

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2008 4:30 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 12:20 PM dunsapy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 81 (484747)
10-01-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by dunsapy
09-30-2008 8:55 PM


Non Sequitur
Dunsapy,

Forgive me if you take this as a personal attack, but I’m really starting to get frustrated here.

Can you give me a reason why I should continue trying to debate with you?

Every single post that you have made consists of only three points:

  1. Science can’t know for certain
  2. Experimental conditions are artificial
  3. Therefore, Dunsapy Theory is correct

I'll willingly admit that I am not the most articulate person in the world. But, I am getting rather frustrated that you aren't even understanding what it is that I'm saying.

Please notice that I have only disagreed with one of your three points (i.e., #3). My argument has been showing you that points #1 and #2 do not lead to point #3. Look:

  1. Science can’t know for certain. Science can know just as certainly about abiogenesis as you can know that they can’t know. Uncertainty applies to all arguments, including yours. So, I could easily make the same case against your argument that you’re making against mine, and my argument would have all the power that you ascribe to yours. Therefore, if your argument succeeds, it also defeats itself.
  2. Experimental conditions are artificial. I have shown you how artificial conditions can simulate/replicate natural conditions (airplane cabins and tree sculptures). I could go through my primary literature database and pull out all of the papers I can find where an experimental study was found to accurately simulate the natural world, if you’d like (but it would be a major pain in the butt, because there are a whole lot of them). So, the mere fact that an experiment is artificial is not evidence that the experiment's conclusions are unapplicable to natural systems.

Notice that I have not, with this argument, disagreed with either of your points. I have shown how your two points do not lead to your conclusion that re-enacting the origin of life only proves intelligent design.

Now, in your next post, please do not repeat “artificial conditions” and “uncertainty,” because these two things do not support your argument.

Edited by Bluejay, : Clarification


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by dunsapy, posted 09-30-2008 8:55 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 1:57 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 54 of 81 (484763)
10-01-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
10-01-2008 12:20 PM


Re: Non Sequitur
I don't want to frustrate you, but sometimes change is hard.
I want to address the points you mentioned.
So I will try again. If I miss one please repeat it.
I think what you are saying is the point 1 and and 2 you agree with.
But point 3 the Dunsapy theory, you are still unsure about .
OK I get that

1 Science can’t know for certain. Science can know just as certainly about abiogenesis as you can know that they can’t know. Uncertainty applies to all arguments, including yours. So, I could easily make the same case against your argument that you’re making against mine, and my argument would have all the power that you ascribe to yours. Therefore, if your argument succeeds, it also defeats itself.

Experimental conditions are artificial. I have shown you how artificial conditions can simulate/replicate natural conditions (airplane cabins and tree sculptures). I could go through my primary literature database and pull out all of the papers I can find where an experimental study was found to accurately simulate the natural world, if you’d like (but it would be a major pain in the butt, because there are a whole lot of them). So, the mere fact that an experiment is artificial is not evidence that the experiment's conclusions are unapplicable to natural systems.

Things can be done, in experiments that happen in the natural world. I agree, with this.
I never said they couldn't. There are lots of examples of this. My theory does not dispute that.
Look at it like this ,

You find a loaf of bread, on the road way.

I can make bread( create). I get flour ( that's processed), sugar( that 's processed), salt, etc. I put and mix all the elements together , let it rise , then put it in the oven for at a certain temperature , and let it bake for a certain time.( this is the experiment)
This experiment was successful, I made bread.

But to prove that bread was made, just from the natural world without any intelligence. You could only observe from a distance.

Now there are many types of bread , the experiment only showed 1 type. So the experiment may not have been perfect, ( as to what elements that went in to the bread, or the baking conditions), but you still have bread.)( different elements would make another type of bread) But you still have bread.
My theory only talks about the experiment itself, and that to prove it just happened on it's own, would have to observe.

Now for abiogenesis. If I go and wait at the road side, and a loaf of bread just appeared out of the ground, ready for eating, and no intelligence or passing truck or airplane , came by and just dropped it. The science might have something.( personally I've been waiting for a harley to show up in my driveway)

If I missed something let me know.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 12:20 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 2:08 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 55 of 81 (484764)
10-01-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Non Sequitur
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

I don't want to frustrate you, but sometimes change is hard.
I want to address the points you mentioned.
So I will try again. If I miss one please repeat it.
I think what you are saying is the point 1 and and 2 you agree with.
But point 3 the Dunsapy theory, you are still unsure about .

No, I'm not "unsure" about Dunsapy Theory. I am sure that Dunsapy Theory is incorrect.

dunsapy writes:

But to prove that bread was made, just from the natural world without any intelligence. You could only observe from a distance...

...My theory only talks about the experiment itself, and that to prove it just happened on it's own, would have to observe.

You just repeated "artificial conditions."

I have addressed this: it is fully possible for artificial conditions to simulate natural conditions.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 1:57 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 56 of 81 (484767)
10-01-2008 2:16 PM


You just repeated "artificial conditions."

I have addressed this: it is fully possible for artificial conditions to simulate natural conditions.

Ok in the bread example, if you wanted to find out about it, what would you do as a scientist?


Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 3:16 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 57 of 81 (484771)
10-01-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 2:16 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Ok in the bread example, if you wanted to find out about it, what would you do as a scientist?

I would start by looking for a good reason to think that bread could be formed naturally, such as fossil evidence of bread forming in the geological column or of some yeast-and-flour geyser in Sweden. If such evidence didn't exist, I wouldn't look into it.

But, if I found some evidence of the "first bread" and the conditions that were associated with its conception, then I would replicate those conditions to see if they could produce bread, or at least precursors to bread, such as an aqueous solution of yeast, flour and vanilla.

Does that sound reasonable?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 2:16 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 58 of 81 (484772)
10-01-2008 3:44 PM


I would start by looking for a good reason to think that bread could be formed naturally, such as fossil evidence of bread forming in the geological column or of some yeast-and-flour geyser in Sweden. If such evidence didn't exist, I wouldn't look into it.

But, if I found some evidence of the "first bread" and the conditions that were associated with its conception, then I would replicate those conditions to see if they could produce bread, or at least precursors to bread, such as an aqueous solution of yeast, flour and vanilla.

Does that sound reasonable?

Yes it does.

But, if I found some evidence of the "first bread" and the conditions that were associated with its conception, then I would replicate those conditions to see if they could produce bread, or at least precursors to bread, such as an aqueous solution of yeast, flour and vanilla.

Doing this experiment to make bread you have shown how a scientist could make bread, it doesn't show how it happened on it's own.( without the scientist there)
(Someone else could have made the bread just as you are doing.)
So what you would do is go this place, and observe if this could happen on it's own.
This is my complete , theory exactly.

Do you get this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 4:17 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 80 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 59 of 81 (484773)
10-01-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 3:44 PM


Bluejay's Post
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Do you get this?

I know exactly what you are saying. I always have.

I am objecting because you are wrong.

dunsapy writes:

Doing this experiment to make bread you have shown how a scientist could make bread, it doesn't show how it happened on it's own.( without the scientist there)
(Someone else could have made the bread just as you are doing.)

Dunsapy, this is almost, word for word, the same assertion that you made at the beginning, except you've inserted "bread" in place of "life."

I have tried several times to address this from several different angles of attack, but, no matter what I do, you just respond with exactly the same line.

I'm putting a lot of effort into this (I spent a total of four hours on my last three posts), but none of it is sinking in. You just keep repeating the same three or four lines, not understanding that none of them means anything in relation to my argument.

Why don't I just start writing, "Bluejay's Post" in my text area. Then, you can respond with, "artificial conditions," "you can't know for certain," "it doesn't prove how it happened on its own," and "so, therefore, Dunsapy Theory is correct." It would save me a lot of time and frustration, and we'd still be having essentially the same conversation from your point of view.

Edited by Bluejay, : Clarification


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 3:44 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 60 of 81 (484792)
10-01-2008 6:39 PM


I'm putting a lot of effort into this (I spent a total of four hours on my last three posts), but none of it is sinking in. You just keep repeating the same three or four lines, not understanding that none of them means anything in relation to my argument.

Why don't I just start writing, "Bluejay's Post" in my text area. Then, you can respond with, "artificial conditions," "you can't know for certain," "it doesn't prove how it happened on its own," and "so, therefore, Dunsapy Theory is correct." It would save me a lot of time and frustration, and we'd still be having essentially the same conversation from your point of view.

I can see you are getting frustrated. I am also.

My theory is really very simple, so the explanation of it doesn't have to be that complicated. It seems that the same conditions come up over and over.
If you really do not want to continue , I understand that.
I think we have discussed it pretty well anyway.
So thanks bluebird.

I would just like to mention, that my trust in a creator, ( rather than non creation) is in the design of the life we see.
Both in plant life and animal life.

ROMANS 1:20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;

I think this is absolutely true.

I have to out of town again, so I will check back, and see if you want to continue or not.


Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 8:18 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017