Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
29 online now:
(29 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,956 Year: 3,602/14,102 Month: 222/321 Week: 38/44 Day: 33/5 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 1 of 10 (483081)
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?


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

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3934
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 10 (483097)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 3 of 10 (483101)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 4 of 10 (483154)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 5 of 10 (483155)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 6 of 10 (483179)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 7 of 10 (483182)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 8 of 10 (483183)
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 4584 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 9 of 10 (483186)
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: 3934
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 10 of 10 (483190)
09-20-2008 4:48 PM


Thread copied to the Dunsapy Theory thread in the The Great Debate forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021