EvC Forum: A Few Questions For Creationists

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.

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 ps

Edited by RAZD, : aisbbisa

Edited 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) • • •

3 online now:	AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,749 Year: 4,006/9,624 Month: 877/974 Week: 204/286 Day: 11/109 Hour: 2/2