A Few Questions For Creationists

No, you have direct observational evidence of the wind. You can see the results as you say, and you can also feel it.Faith doesn't simply refer to invisible things. Faith is a direct reference to a belief that is not supported by any evidence. There is no "faith" in believing that wind exists becasue you can support your belief with the evidence of direct observation (feeling the wind's motion) as well as indirect observation (seeing the effects of the wind).You've given a perfect example of what faith is not. please try again.From the dictionary entry on Faith:

quote:

---

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

---

Relevant portion bolded. If any beleif is held but not based on objective evidence or proof, that belief is based on faith. If a belief is held and is based on objective evidence or proof, that belief is based on objective evidence or proof, not faith.

I started a new topic,
it's here
EvC Forum: Dunsapy Theory 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?

I think you have a complete non-sequitur.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That is blind faith,.
Real faith is the assured expectation, of something.
You cann't see wind but you can see the results of wind. Wind is high pressure to low pressure , everything moves that can with it. You can't see the pressure, but it causes wind. you can't see wind, but you can see and feel the results.Now you have a creator, you can't see the creator, you can't see his energy, but you can see and feel the results, (of his creation.)
So... if this is not faith, then you are saying it is fact, (proof of a creator)?

Please explain.

Sure. You wrote: What a scientist does some four billion years after the fact does not change that fact.If life arose from natural causes and agents, the fact that a scientist can replicate that series of events at a later date does not change that original series of events into something different.Suggesting that because a scientist four billion years later can replicate those events certainly would not show that those original events were caused by an intelligence.The two events are unrelated, hence a non-sequitur.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You're welcome dunsapy Strangely that doesn't answer the question.DNA is a chemical. Chemicals come from chemicals. This is a natural law.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

But scientists doing the experiment only can show that , it takes intelligence to do it.
To show that it happened by itself you would have to find some uncontaminated place, and watch it happen. Scientists can not be involved. ( how do you know that a creator did not do it in the first place) and all the scientists are doing, is copying, his procedure. That would mean a creator.

DNA is also a set of instructions. A blue print of life. A design.
Can science show were any life came from non life or not by intelligence?
Science is now trying very hard to create some sort of life from non life. But all that can show is that it took intelligence to do it.

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.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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)

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.

Good morning dunsapy. 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.ps - please use the reply to message button, not the general reply button:if you use the reply to message buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.Edited by RAZD, : added psEdited by RAZD, : aisbbisaEdited by RAZD, : linebreak

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Dunaspy:Let's put two subthreads together: say that Hurricane Ike blew down some trees, and that a scientist wanted to confirm just how much wind-with-rain it takes to blow that particular strain of slash pine over. So she borrows the fan from one of NASA's giant wind tunnels, sets it up out by Conroe, Texas, and starts blowing down trees. She measures wind speeds and varies the amount of simulated rain she adds in.Does that make Ike intelligent? That's precisely what you are arguing.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

coragyps
RAZD
vacatethank you for help testing my theory,
I have started a new topic,The Dunsapy Theory and would really like to get it out of the black hole it is now in.
So If it not too much trouble could you please paste or comment over there? I would like to keep all the stuff on my theory to be under 1 topic.
RAZD I see you have done pictures as well so I hope this is not to much bother for you.
Thanks
dunsapyhere is the linkhttp://EvC Forum: Dunsapy Theory -->EvC Forum: Dunsapy Theory Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.