Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 126 (8772 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2017 6:25 AM
123 online now:
caffeine, dwise1, frako, Huntard, PaulK, Pressie, Riggamortis, vimesey (8 members, 115 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,278 Year: 18,884/21,208 Month: 1,643/3,111 Week: 438/707 Day: 14/120 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6Next
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 61 of 81 (484814)
10-01-2008 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 6:39 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

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

I used to think of myself as a nice, considerate, polite person.

I've had one too many debates with creationists, and I find it extremely hard to keep my temper in check. Maybe being nice all those years was really just bottling it up, and I'm finally losing my composure.

dunsapy writes:

My theory is really very simple, so the explanation of it doesn't have to be that complicated.

quote:
Seek simplicity... and distrust it.

-Alfred Whitehead

;)

-----

If you want your theory to be that science can't know things for certain, I'm fine with that. But, your conclusion that lab experiments into origins can only prove intelligent design is a non sequitur. It would prove that intelligence can set up the conditions necessary, but it can do more than that: because it's based on physical evidence from nature, with time, it can show how nature did it.

Lab experiments can be set up, but they can't be "controlled" like clockwork or some other machine: you have to leave it open for the system to act in some way, or else you don't learn about the system. In other words, you have to set it up specifically so that something in the system is not under your control, because, if it were under your control, you could only show your own capacity, and not the system's capacity.

When the system is allowed to act independently, the only way "intelligent design" applies is in guiding natural processes. But, they’re still natural processes.

Accident is not design. Intelligent design "theory" explicitly states that life (indeed, the whole universe) could not have happened by accident.

Chemistry under supervision is not design. That's just chemistry.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 6:39 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 62 of 81 (484830)
10-02-2008 2:01 AM


I really don't understand why science is against this idea of mine.
I like science just as much as the next guy. I am for science. I am for learning, and I am for experimentation.
I think that, science doing experiments, is a good thing. Science has learned a lot from that.
All I am saying is that, in doing the experiment, only shows that , through the experiment ( with intelligence) all you can show is that intelligence was involved, to make the experiment work. It doesn't say anything about what could or did happen naturally. To find that out, you need to observe that in it's natural condition.

The idea of ice was put to me earlier
We observe ice forms when it is cold. Science comes along and finds out that , it now can take enough heat away so the that any water in a box will freeze.
The experiment only shows that it took intelligence to make ice in the box. But observation tells us that ice will also form under natural conditions.
This is exactly what my idea says.
I really don't see how this is such a big deal.
This has nothing to do with believing in a creator or not.

What I think happens is,that science wants to say life started by just natural forces without a creator. The trouble is, if science was able to create life in an experiment, they can't observe this in the natural state in early history. So they want to claim the experiment, as proof that life could have started this way. But the experiment can't do that. Only observation can do that.
I think people think that my theory, is about creation. It is not. It is simply about what the experiment, what it can show and what it can't.

It's is like the bread, example
Science can only show through experiment, that bread was made with a creator ( science).
But if science found that bread, just naturally formed , somewhere, then they could say it didn't need intelligence, to do it. But so far they can only say it took intelligence to make bread.

This is not that hard to understand. Science does not have to be afraid of this idea.
The only reason science might not like it, is that they may not be able to prove a preconceived idea, they have about the start to life.
But other than that what is the problem??

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2008 1:32 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 63 of 81 (484867)
10-02-2008 12:02 PM


this is the kind of statment I get from science.

When the experiment is done it shows that when stirred four times it happens, intelligence is irrelevant. It does not matter. Intelligence is irrelevant, unimportant.

This is the attitude , that a lot of science, has. They don't want to hear anything but their preconceived ideas. But that is not science.
Science is supposed to have an open mind. But it is this kind of statement, that has held science back, when it comes to how life started or could start. They need a new direction, without the baggage. And and it doesn't have to be creation.
For instance, just try to create life in an experiment, don't try to replicate conditions that may have been here on the earth, at the start ( because science doesn't know what they were anyway). See if you can make life from non life. Sure, this only shows creation, but you would learn a lot from that. Then expand the experiments from there.
But trying to do it, to prove how life could have started, is only baggage.
This is what I meant earlier, about science is holding it's self back, by trying to prove a preconceived idea.

Do you get this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2008 2:04 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 64 of 81 (484873)
10-02-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by dunsapy
10-02-2008 2:01 AM


Uncertainty
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

It doesn't say anything about what could or did happen naturally. To find that out, you need to observe that in it's natural condition.

Well, if you had stuck to saying "...doesn't say exactly what did happen," you'd be right. But, the experiment does have the power to say what could have happened, and it also has the power to say something about with did happen.

As an example of the implications, if we were to accept your idea as scientific, we would also conclude that the court system does not work, because most crimes are not witnessed directly.

Just as you don’t need to actually see the murder to know who did it and how it went down, you also don’t need to actually see the origin of life to know how it went down.

That's really the issue that science will take with your idea. Your argument effectively states that science is impotent. I don’t think you realize this, and I know you don’t think it, but this really is the gist of your argument. In order to declare anything as categorically impossible for science, you concomitantly declare science impotent. If you acknowledge that science even has a little power, then you also leave the door open for that little power to slowly accumulate over the years into virtual invincibility (that’s the whole concept of science, after all).

Effectively, your argument rests on the idea that, “If you cannot know everything, you cannot know anything,” which is just a fancy way of banking on the margin of error (which science does have the power to minimize into irrelevance, if given enough time and resources), no matter how small that margin may be.

That’s the issue that we will take with your argument. Your argument is simply taking the concept of a margin of error and inflating it to claim that scientific endeavours are awash in vast clouds of uncertainty to the extent that scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all. I know that you, personally, do not believe this, but this really is what your proposed idea means.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dunsapy, posted 10-02-2008 2:01 AM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 81 (484874)
10-02-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by dunsapy
10-02-2008 12:02 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Do you get this?

Yes, I get it. This is a very fine line that has to be monitored all the time. But, I can assure you that there are a sufficient number of different opinions in science to keep the entire system mostly in check.

dunsapy writes:

When the experiment is done it shows that when stirred four times it happens, intelligence is irrelevant. It does not matter. Intelligence is irrelevant, unimportant.

This is the attitude , that a lot of science, has. They don't want to hear anything but their preconceived ideas. But that is not science.
Science is supposed to have an open mind. But it is this kind of statement, that has held science back, when it comes to how life started or could start. They need a new direction, without the baggage. And and it doesn't have to be creation.

Would it then be your argument that an earthquake could not stir the substance four times?

“Irrelevant” doesn’t mean “non-existent”: it only means that the system still functions without considering it. If an earthquake can stir a puddle four times, who cares if the earthquake was natural or God-created? Wouldn’t the results still be the same?

There is no attitude of atheism in science, despite what creationists and Christians claim. I am a Christian myself, a member of a priesthood and a clerk. But, when I do science, I never introduce “God did it” into my considerations, because it doesn’t really answer the question. If I were to propose, “God did it,” in a scientific discussion, the obvious follow-up question from the audience would inevitably have to be, “How did God do it?”

In the end, you still get back to “How?” So, why not just skip the middle question and just ask “how” from the beginning, and let the religious in the group add God into it on their own?

But, the unwillingness of religious people to let an hour pass without God’s name being spoken has led to a lot of hard feelings on the part of atheists, and many atheistic scientists will get very upset about any mention of God at all. Pesonally, though, I don’t blame them for it: they didn’t do anything wrong, and it’s really the Christians’ demanding that God be part of every discussion that causes progress to be made.

dunsapy writes:

This is what I meant earlier, about science is holding it's self back, by trying to prove a preconceived idea.

And, I think this is the only thing you’ve ever said that I find genuinely offensive.

What you are calling “preconceived ideas” are actually long series of carefully constructed, heavily analyzed and meticulously scrutinized experiments. Science is designed to build upon pre-existing science. You don’t erase the slate every time you do a new experiment: you take what you learned from the last experiment and apply it to your next experiment. The "baggage," as you call it, is only the knowledge that previous science has produced. You can't just ignore that. Otherwise, how could science ever get past the first step?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by dunsapy, posted 10-02-2008 12:02 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 66 of 81 (485165)
10-05-2008 11:02 PM


Hi bluejay I'm back

As an example of the implications, if we were to accept your idea as scientific, we would also conclude that the court system does not work, because most crimes are not witnessed directly.

In days past there was no DNA, finger prints, no blood type etc.
So in the early days they hoped for an eye witness. and used circumstantial evidence. Lots of people were convicted that were innocent. Today were have blood type, DNA, finger prints. But even with these things, they really like to get an eye witness. Because
DNA, finger prints, blood type, can often be explained in other ways. ( for instance they could have been best friends and DNA and finger prints, could be around , in the course of every day life. ) The best is an eye witness.( or better yet 2 or 3 eye witnesses)
Now with DNA , and finger prints. These things were checked out before they were used in a court of law. Fingers prints, were checked with thousands of prints to see if they were all different. The same with DNA, after it was discovered that everyone had different DNA, then it could be used.
But even with DNA and finger prints, some get off. Even though everything else says they are guilty. Some times it is how the evidence is viewed or interpreted . Sometimes by racial views. ( it shouldn't matter , put in our world it can)
The legal system is not perfect, and sometimes is just unjust. ( no matter what the evidence says) That is why some court cases can last a very long time. (They are not cut and dried) (My wife works in family law.)
People in law enforcement, will tell you how difficult it can be to get a conviction, from just evidence. Some times they need a lot of it, but an eye witness is the best. They spend a lot of time trying to track down eye witnesses.
This is what my theory says.


That's really the issue that science will take with your idea. Your argument effectively states that science is impotent. I don’t think you realize this, and I know you don’t think it, but this really is the gist of your argument. In order to declare anything as categorically impossible for science, you concomitantly declare science impotent. If you acknowledge that science even has a little power, then you also leave the door open for that little power to slowly accumulate over the years into virtual invincibility (that’s the whole concept of science, after all).

I do realize this. When I first thought up this idea , it took awhile for me to understand this. I can tell you I was a little nervous about it. But on thinking about this more, it doesn't have to be that big of a deal. For instance , it doesn't have to stop experimentation, and learning things. The only real thing, I think it does , is that it holds in check, the interpretation , of the experiments. ( which is the unknown)
Even though science swears up and down that they are not biassed towards a non creator, start to life, what they say and do , does not agree with that. They are trying to prove a non creation start to life.

Effectively, your argument rests on the idea that, “If you cannot know everything, you cannot know anything,” which is just a fancy way of banking on the margin of error (which science does have the power to minimize into irrelevance, if given enough time and resources), no matter how small that margin may be.
That’s the issue that we will take with your argument. Your argument is simply taking the concept of a margin of error and inflating it to claim that scientific endeavours are awash in vast clouds of uncertainty to the extent that scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all. I know that you, personally, do not believe this, but this really is what your proposed idea means.

No , this is not what I am saying at all. My theory states, that the experiment, just shows creation because it takes intelligence to set things up, and speed things up to get a result.
Science could be right on with conditions, materials, etc. But you would never know that, unless you saw it happen on it's own. The experiment does not tell you, that. ( a creator could have done the same things as the scientists did in their experiment.)
It is only circumstantial, evidence. You really need an eye witness.

I think science is already coming to that conclusion , anyway, with theories like abiogenesis. It's just that they don't know it yet.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 67 of 81 (485166)
10-05-2008 11:07 PM


Yes, I get it. This is a very fine line that has to be monitored all the time. But, I can assure you that there are a sufficient number of different opinions in science to keep the entire system mostly in check.

This is exactly the point. If the evidence was so correct, or there was so much evidence, there should be no different opinions. In a court of law this would not be enough to pronounce a judgement. ( if all the experts, contradicted each other )


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 68 of 81 (485167)
10-05-2008 11:11 PM


There is no attitude of atheism in science, despite what creationists and Christians claim. I am a Christian myself, a member of a priesthood and a clerk. But, when I do science, I never introduce “God did it” into my considerations, because it doesn’t really answer the question. If I were to propose, “God did it,” in a scientific discussion, the obvious follow-up question from the audience would inevitably have to be, “How did God do it?”

This is why science is doing the experiments. No problem with that at all. I like to know the answers of how it was done myself.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 69 of 81 (485169)
10-05-2008 11:21 PM


In the end, you still get back to “How?” So, why not just skip the middle question and just ask “how” from the beginning, and let the religious in the group add God into it on their own?

But, the unwillingness of religious people to let an hour pass without God’s name being spoken has led to a lot of hard feelings on the part of atheists, and many atheistic scientists will get very upset about any mention of God at all. Pesonally, though, I don’t blame them for it: they didn’t do anything wrong, and it’s really the Christians’ demanding that God be part of every discussion that causes progress to be made.

I would never want God to be taught in the schools. Or even with science. Science should be open, take no sides. The trouble is, that science has taken a side, with only circumstantial evidence. If they had not said anything, one way or the other , creation or non creation. There would not be a problem. If they had proof of something that would be different, but they don't. I think this is were the differences come from.


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 70 of 81 (485172)
10-05-2008 11:46 PM


And, I think this is the only thing you’ve ever said that I find genuinely offensive.

What you are calling “preconceived ideas” are actually long series of carefully constructed, heavily analyzed and meticulously scrutinized experiments. Science is designed to build upon pre-existing science. You don’t erase the slate every time you do a new experiment: you take what you learned from the last experiment and apply it to your next experiment. The "baggage," as you call it, is only the knowledge that previous science has produced. You can't just ignore that. Otherwise, how could science ever get past the first step?

I understand, what you say here. But I think this is the problem. Science, starting with Darwin( I use him because he is the most well known one), have gotten on a path that has taken them, to conclude something with out proof.
If you take just the fossil records, there is nothing there that can't be explained by creation. Science has had hoax's in the past, misinterpretations of bones etc. Science is not that reliable, so far. Scientists disagree with other scientists, on many of these questions. It's not as though it was set in stone!( I know,... bad joke)
I can say God used , one animal then built on it to make another, he used DNA and manipulated it into all sorts of creatures, etc. That's why there are feathers, instead of fur, etc.


Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 12:04 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 71 of 81 (485216)
10-06-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dunsapy
10-05-2008 11:46 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Hi bluejay I'm back.

Wow. Are you ever!

Welcome back!

dunsapy writes:

Some times they need a lot of it, but an eye witness is the best. They spend a lot of time trying to track down eye witnesses.

Have you ever seen the show "House"? One of House's favorite lines is, "the symptoms don't lie, but the patient can." It's the same for witnesses: they can lie, and it's a lot easier to discredit an eyewitness than it is to discredit a fingerprint on the murder weapon.

dunsapy writes:

Science, starting with Darwin( I use him because he is the most well known one), have gotten on a path that has taken them, to conclude something with out proof.

But, there is proof.

Consider this:

14 billion years ago, there aren't even chemicals in the universe yet, let alone life.

4 billion years ago, there is an earth, but no life.

3.5 billion years ago, there is evidence of simple life on earth.

Today, there is life on earth.

Where did it come from? Whatever you do, you have to trace the universe back to a point where there was no life. Therefore, at some point in the past, life had to have come from non-life.

The next question is, “How?”

Either “intelligent design” or “natural processes,” right? Those are the two basic possibilities, right?

But, wait. Are there really to answers there? After all, even if “natural processe” proved correct, a creationist could just say that God could have worked by natural processes. So, either answer could be fully consistent with intelligent design. So, can you really even test the “intelligent design” hypothesis of origins?

No. So, how about we don’t bother trying? Let’s just focus on the one idea that we can test.

When Miller and Urey showed the biomolecules can form under lifeless conditions, and when other scientists subsequently showed that other biomolecules can form even in space, when other scientists showed that RNA can catalyze its own replication, when other scientists discovered how natural conditions can produce homochirality, we have discovered all the hallmarks of biochemistry occurring naturally. This is the foundation of the theory that the origin of life does not require intelligent intervention.

That's a lot of evidence for natural causation.

The next logical step is to try to see how far this trend of natural causation goes. The best available way to do that is to simulate early-earth conditions in the laboratory. It will not produce perfect results, but it will produce relevant results. And, the results will only get better as time goes on. To pronounce now, in the early stages of a science, what that science will and will not be able to figure out in the indefinite future is foolhardy and completely unfounded. The Wright brothers thought flight over 100 mph would never be possible based on the practical constraints they faced in designing their flyers. Aircraft broke the speed of sound just a little over half a century later.

Again, if we had the ability to see what actually happened by going back in time, it would be a lot easier to figure out what actually happened. But, this in no way means that we can’t figure it out some other way, unless you insist that circumstantial and indirect evidence are impotent.

-----

dunsapy writes:

Even though science swears up and down that they are not biassed towards a non creator, start to life, what they say and do , does not agree with that. They are trying to prove a non creation start to life.

Did you mean to put two S’s in “biassed”? That’s like saying we’re asses twice! Or that we have two rear ends! :D

They are trying to discover a naturalistic start to life. Here is a thread started by creationist Wumpini about a poll that found that 40% of scientists believe in God. I personally was “converted” to evolution by professors at a religious university (Brigham Young University), in which all full-time faculty had to be devout and “worthy” members of the LDS Church: the people who taught me evolution were bishops and elders and high priests in my church! They were not trying to teach me that there was no Creator, but that naturalism is the only way to accurately study the natural world. Naturalism, like everything else in this universe, is fully compatible with a Creator.

-----

dunsapy writes:

Bluejay writes:

Effectively, your argument rests on the idea that, “If you cannot know everything, you cannot know anything,” which is just a fancy way of banking on the margin of error (which science does have the power to minimize into irrelevance, if given enough time and resources), no matter how small that margin may be.

That’s the issue that we will take with your argument. Your argument is simply taking the concept of a margin of error and inflating it to claim that scientific endeavours are awash in vast clouds of uncertainty to the extent that scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all. I know that you, personally, do not believe this, but this really is what your proposed idea means.

No , this is not what I am saying at all. My theory states, that the experiment, just shows creation because it takes intelligence to set things up, and speed things up to get a result.

You cannot say that lab experiments can only prove creation without also saying that all lab experiments are impotent at producing information relevant to the natural systems. Both are logical consequences of the argument you are making: if one is true, the other is also. There is no way around this unless you’re only arguing that there is a margin of error (a trivially valid argument that is called “God of the Gaps”).

-----

dunsapy writes:

If the evidence was so correct, or there was so much evidence, there should be no different opinions.

In the science of origins, the evidence is currently consistent with at least half a dozen different models. Every one of these models rests on the same basic premise: that life arose in the early environment from naturally-occurring chemical processes. Some people claim that clay formations served as a substrate that facilitated abiogenesis. Some people claim that benthic hot springs are the most likely place where life started. Some people claim that life could start in shallow puddles. Nobody has any evidence for these exact models yet.

But, every one of these models is based on the same premises. There is no major disagreement on those basic premises. No one has yet tested the viability of the various models yet.

-----

dunsapy writes:

If you take just the fossil records, there is nothing there that can't be explained by creation.

This is because there exists nothing in the entire universe that can’t be subsumed into creationism. “Creation” is not a model of the universe: it is just an assertion that some incomprehensible power was somehow involved (perhaps undetectably so) in whatever process did happen. Evolution and abiogenesis are also both compatible with creationism.

THERE IS NO VALUE IN STUDYING CREATIONISM, BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO SUBSUME LITERALLY ANYTHING INTO ITSELF, THUS RENDERING ITSELF INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING UNIQUE INFORMATION AND PREVENTING ANY EVIDENCE FROM DISCREDITING IT.

I keep trying to tell creationists to back off and let science answer all the questions, and I’d be happy to let them add, “And God did it,” at the end of all my sentences.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dunsapy, posted 10-05-2008 11:46 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 72 of 81 (485220)
10-06-2008 12:12 PM


Did you mean to put two S’s in “biassed”? That’s like saying we’re asses twice! Or that we have two rear ends!

Ha ha ha ..sorry about that :)


    
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 73 of 81 (485226)
10-06-2008 1:07 PM


Hi bluejay our posts are getting long with many q@a 's. So I'm going to try to get them shorter. I hope thats OK with you.
Eye witnesses are not always reliable. this is true. Evidence can be read different ways. But science is getting better, at things like this. But expert witnesses , like different scientist is areal problem.
I think you missed the point about DNA. You can have a theory about DNA , that it is unique to an individual. But until out go and test 1000s of individuals. You can't have confidence in it. Same with finger prints. So you need both parts of my theory to show that.
This the same with the start to life.The only problem is you can't check it out.( at least so far)

The bible says that God is abundant in energy. Science tells me that energy can be transformed. That gives me an explanation of how the universe got here.
So what was before the 'big bang'?

Miller and Urey's experiments , have not been successful, so one really knows why yet.
You have to assume how the earth and the chemicals etc. got there. Could have it been by a creator, or did it just happen? Where did all of this material come from in the universe?

The evidence for early life, is only circumstantial. The experiments can only show how the scientists thought it happened. If they do make life from non life, that does not show how it actually happened. ( I know i'm repeating myself)

THERE IS NO VALUE IN STUDYING CREATIONISM, BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO SUBSUME LITERALLY ANYTHING INTO ITSELF, THUS RENDERING ITSELF INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING UNIQUE INFORMATION AND PREVENTING ANY EVIDENCE FROM DISCREDITING IT.

I wanted to answer this. - All the work and evidence from science so far, is not worthless.
It is worth pursuing. It is just that for 150 years or more science has, been trying to prove something, that in the end they have no proof for. And they are actually going against, what proof there is.
And that is, life comes from life, and the design in life.

You mentioned that many scientists believe in God . They can still do science. That's no problem.
But if they believe in the God of the bible, then , they have to believe that God created all things.

You have mentioned some things in your last posts that I picked up on. and would like to discuss, but that really gets off of the subject.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 1:44 PM dunsapy has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 165 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 74 of 81 (485231)
10-06-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by dunsapy
10-06-2008 1:07 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

I think you missed the point about DNA. You can have a theory about DNA , that it is unique to an individual. But until out go and test 1000s of individuals. You can't have confidence in it. Same with finger prints. So you need both parts of my theory to show that.
This the same with the start to life.The only problem is you can't check it out. (at least so far)

But, you can check it out. You can check it against the geological evidence I have been talking about since the beginning of this thread. There is evidence!!

Also, I yellowed a very important part of your post. "Not yet" does not imply "not ever." But, your argument is deriving a "not ever" from a "not yet."

dunsapy writes:

You have to assume how the earth and the chemicals etc. got there. Could have it been by a creator, or did it just happen? Where did all of this material come from in the universe?

Would it make a difference if a Designer/Creator put it there? If life requires a meteorite collision, what difference does it make whether God threw the meteorite or it just flew by naturally? In either event, the meteorite is the important factor, because, if life can start from God throwing a meteorite, it can also start from a natural meteorite collision.

dunsapy writes:

So what was before the 'big bang'?

I'm not a Big Bang cosmology expert, nor is this a Big Bang thread. But, you've got to understand the basic principle of it: the Big Bang is not the production of matter and energy: it's the expansion of space and time. Time began at the Big Bang, so asking about "before" the Big Bang is the same as asking about north of the North Pole (that's a favorite example used by physicists and Big Bang groupies).

dunsapy writes:

And that is, life comes from life, and the design in life.

Yes, life comes from life. But, we know that this can't be universal, because of the evidence of the Big Bang. Since there was a point in the history of the universe when life didn't exist, there also has to have been a point in the history of the universe when life came from non-life, or else life wouldn't be here now.

We don't know how it happened, or who was involved. But, the point is that it had to have happened somehow. And, however it happened, there was a method behind the happening. Science has the ability to find the method without even making a single reference to the designer of the method (if there is one).

But, if we can show that life was created without magic, then we have proven that life came about naturalistically (that is, by using natural processes). What's the difference between naturalistically and naturally?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by dunsapy, posted 10-06-2008 1:07 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dunsapy, posted 10-06-2008 3:07 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 3117 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 75 of 81 (485240)
10-06-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Blue Jay
10-06-2008 1:44 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.
dunsapy writes:
I think you missed the point about DNA. You can have a theory about DNA , that it is unique to an individual. But until out go and test 1000s of individuals. You can't have confidence in it. Same with finger prints. So you need both parts of my theory to show that.
This the same with the start to life.The only problem is you can't check it out. (at least so far)
But, you can check it out. You can check it against the geological evidence I have been talking about since the beginning of this thread. There is evidence!!

Also, I yellowed a very important part of your post. "Not yet" does not imply "not ever." But, your argument is deriving a "not ever" from a "not yet."

I have no problem with checking out the geological evidence. But if was as simple as that science would have done it by now. That in itself does not tell you about creation or non creation. It may only tell you what the conditions were or might have been.
The 'not yet' I mean here, is giving science the chance to find some place that they can observe from.


Would it make a difference if a Designer/Creator put it there? If life requires a meteorite collision, what difference does it make whether God threw the meteorite or it just flew by naturally? In either event, the meteorite is the important factor, because, if life can start from God throwing a meteorite, it can also start from a natural meteorite collision.

That is the point of the theory . If science throws a rock at it's experiment, and it works, then science can say we made it by throwing a rock. But that doesn't say what actually happened that. Or how it happened.. So what science does then is goes and looks where meteorites landed and see if life formed there. ( for proof) And the experiment from scientist doesn't tell you how the rock was thrown , by a natural forces or by someone.
So the experiments, results may look natural, but in reality , be caused by intelligence.
If scientists go out in the field, to look for proof and looks at 100's of meteor crashes, but finds no life, caused by it. The experiments by the scientists, could be concluded as it only worked in the experiment. ( intelligence) They actually have test it in the feild. To prove it.

Yes, life comes from life. But, we know that this can't be universal, because of the evidence of the Big Bang. Since there was a point in the history of the universe when life didn't exist, there also has to have been a point in the history of the universe when life came from non-life, or else life wouldn't be here now.

This is the point that the Creator steps in and creates from the materials of the earth. The bible says the from the dust of the ground. But even this means life comes from life, or from intelligence. ( creator)

We don't know how it happened, or who was involved. But, the point is that it had to have happened somehow. And, however it happened, there was a method behind the happening. Science has the ability to find the method without even making a single reference to the designer of the method (if there is one).

But that is like taking a note out of a symphony, and calling it just a note, and saying, no, there is no music here. Science can take apart that note and break it down to it's elements. and tell you a lot about the note. But they have missed the music.
But as science finds more and more notes, they will be forced to recognize the symphony. Thats what i think is happening by theories science is using now. They are getting closer to this.

But, if we can show that life was created without magic, then we have proven that life came about naturalistically (that is, by using natural processes). What's the difference between naturalistically and naturally?

I call this the RIH factor ( rabbit in Hat ) A magician shows you a empty hat, but then produces a rabbit. Magic. But everyone knows that the magician brings the rabbit to the show. All, is not what it seems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 1:44 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 4:05 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017