Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)

Only direct evidence is good enough to prove something. Anything short of perfection is worthless.

Only direct evidence....
This is what science is about. finding out through direct evidence , so there is no doubt.

Anything short of perfection....
No one is perfect , no one has perfect understanding of things, I allow for that. As I hope others will allow for that with me. The search for knowledge is not worthless , the conditions of an experiment, do not have to be perfect. Life it self shows that it can take some variance in conditions.
So these to statements is not what I'm trying to say.

If you watched life form on a new world, you would not be able to prove that the process happened the same way here on Earth. It would still be indirect evidence, only the relevance would actually be less than indirect evidence from the rocks on Earth.

This is correct, but at least you would know that it could happen. And outside of an experiment. ( with intelligence)

If you watched life form on a new world without touching it, you would not be able to analyze the chemical reactions that are going on unless you could develop magical Star Trek “sensor” technology that can survey entire biospheres in under a minute from orbit, and there’s no reason to believe that such technology wouldn’t alter the processes that were going on, either.

Well the thing I think of here is that , science would be much more credible if they had no involvement at all. Then they could say it happened with no interference. That would be proof. Now if they go and start playing with the soils etc. how do they not know they have disturbed something, artificially moved something, or mixed something., or covered something over, they may inadvertently killed something by this maneuver. Or even brought something with them. Much better to be no part of it.

If you watched life form on a new world, you would still have to use science to monitor and diagnose the processes you see, and science leads to unacceptable imperfections (according to your argument).

This is true. But if science came to another planet like earth, it would not take much to see what's going on. I think that science thinks that the earth is so unique , they don't expect to find life like it is on earth. I think they only expect, if they can find anything it would be in the most primitive state there is. Which tells me that that science is desperate to get some kind of proof of other life. Mars is a prime example.

We don’t have to wait millions of years to see if all these things could have happened, because we have shown how all of these things can happen spontaneously under plausible conditions in very short periods of time. If they can happen in very short periods of time, then “millions of years” just points to long periods of waiting for the different molecules to stabilize into a working network of reactions.

Spontaneously , can mean a creator. If science shows this by experiments , then this only shows that it took intelligence to do it. The Dunsapy Theory.
If these things are happening in the natural world, then scientists that say life took millions of years, are contradicting the evidence, and thus are wrong.

The only things to really sort out now are the sequence of events and the stimuli that dictated that sequence. Once science has gotten that, you are right that we couldn’t prove that it did happen that way, but we will have removed any reason to believe that it didn’t. Basically, science will have shown that, even if God didn’t exist, life still could have happened: belief that God was involved would then only be a matter of personal taste, rather than prudence.

Your right you can't prove that it happened that way. You would only show that through an experiment by intelligence that it could have happened that way. But that shows the case for creation, because what you have shown is, that how the creator could have done it. To show it could happen on it's own you would have to let it do that.
The last part on God , is not part of this discussion yet. ( as you can imagine I have a lot to say on that ) :)
So far the Dunsapy Theory, still holds.

Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes: Only direct evidence.... This is what science is about. finding out through direct evidence , so there is no doubt.

No, this is not what science is about. Did you even read my forensics/courtroom example?

Bluejay, message #22, writes: In the courtroom, direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, photographs or video footage. Everything else is indirect evidence (DNA, a murder weapon, fingerprints, blood spatters, motive, allabies, etc.). When you advocate the position that science cannot answer how life began without seeing it directly, you are also saying that a prosecutor cannot find out who killed their victim unless they saw it happen.

There is no rule in science about whether we should use direct or indirect evidence. Both work equally well: it’s just that direct evidence is easier. But, in the case of historical sciences, like palaeontology, archaeology and origins-of-life, the only thing you get is indirect evidence. In dealing with the diets of spiders (my research), I rely on DNA evidence from gut contents to tell me what the spider has been eating. That’s also indirect evidence. Science makes good use of indirect evidence all the time.

As much as you and many other people may dislike it, indirect evidence is perfectly valid and can be just as meaningful as direct evidence.

dunsapy writes: Well the thing I think of here is that, science would be much more credible if they had no involvement at all.

So, science would be much more credible if they... didn’t do science?

dunsapy writes: Then they could say it happened with no interference. That would be proof.

Why do you assume that we don’t know how to test for “interference”? It isn’t hard.

For example: if your experiment calls for you to cut off the wings of flies and glue different wings on, you would leave one group of flies uncut, and you would cut off another group of flies’ wings and glue the same wings back on, just to see if the cutting and pasting had any effect. That’s called an “experimental control.” (Reference: Greene et al, in Science magazine (1987), see here for an overview of the experiment).

dunsapy writes: Spontaneously, can mean a creator.

No, it really can’t. Spontaneous:

quote:

---

adj.
1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.
4. Growing without cultivation or human labor.

---

dunsapy writes: If science shows this by experiments , then this only shows that it took intelligence to do it.

No, it doesn’t. Can you give me a good reason why a mixture of chemicals in the laboratory would respond differently to an environmental stimulus than the same mixture out in nature?

The only reason we have to use a controlled environment to study origins is because nature is no longer capable of producing and maintaining the conditions that were present at the time life began.

dunsapy writes: You would only show that through an experiment by intelligence that it could have happened that way. But that shows the case for creation, because what you have shown is, that how the creator could have done it. To show it could happen on it's own you would have to let it do that.

How does this stuff just bounce off you, man?

Do you not understand that the conditions produced by the experiment are the conditions of the environment as understood by the scientist?

If I use the same environmental conditions in my experiment as I found for the time period I’m studying, how could my results not be relevant?

dunsapy writes: So far the Dunsapy Theory, still holds.

No.

---

-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.

No, this is not what science is about. Did you even read my forensics/courtroom example? Bluejay, message #22, writes: In the courtroom, direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, photographs or video footage. Everything else is indirect evidence (DNA, a murder weapon, fingerprints, blood spatters, motive, allabies, etc.). When you advocate the position that science cannot answer how life began without seeing it directly, you are also saying that a prosecutor cannot find out who killed their victim unless they saw it happen. There is no rule in science about whether we should use direct or indirect evidence. Both work equally well: it’s just that direct evidence is easier. But, in the case of historical sciences, like palaeontology, archaeology and origins-of-life, the only thing you get is indirect evidence. In dealing with the diets of spiders (my research), I rely on DNA evidence from gut contents to tell me what the spider has been eating. That’s also indirect evidence. Science makes good use of indirect evidence all the time. As much as you and many other people may dislike it, indirect evidence is perfectly valid and can be just as meaningful as direct evidence.

In the case of the start to life, you have no such evidence.
Science does not know exactly the conditions on the earth at that time. They don't know why this start happened, why it didn't start earlier, what kind of life started, what did it lead to, all the variable conditions from the start until today. They have no proof of any of this.
If you took this to court, they would throw it out , because of no evidence and no proof. Only guesses. But science has gone ahead of that , and pronounced a verdict , of non creation, on their own.
By doing the experiments on this they can only show the creation side. They cannot show that it just happened.

By the experiments so far all have failed,so a court of law would not even let this get to trial.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Why do you assume that we don’t know how to test for “interference”? It isn’t hard.

If a volcano erupted and darkened the sky for six months, in the year 12 of the millions of years, would you replicate that. If an earth quake happened, and shook the earth in the 24 year of the millions of years, and buried the chemicals for a little time, but the Sun in the summer of 69 ( Brian Adams song), was very hot and scorched the ground. would all of these things be included in the experiment. for the millions of years.
The experiments by science are artificial, and only show intelligence was involved.

adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint. 3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior. 4. Growing without cultivation or human labor.

1 the DNA would give instructions for that to happen
2 same as one
3 not sure what you mean here.
4 wild plants do that all the time

You have to understand, I don,t pretend to know what the details are in every bit of life. My theory does not say anything about these things.
But I will answer what I think, that way I can always learn more about this sort of thing, first hand . ( I do hope you understand that)

No, it doesn’t. Can you give me a good reason why a mixture of chemicals in the laboratory would respond differently to an environmental stimulus than the same mixture out in nature?

I think it is impossible to replicate everything in nature, from a time period that you do not know the conditions and prove what they were , how time affected things , unforeseen occurrences , how chemicals may have mixed etc. You can only guess.
So to do any experiment like that, would be only an artificial simulation of what you think things might have been like. This does not prove, or show that it could have been like that in nature. Though I do think science could come up with conditions that would be favorable to life. But this is not the same thing. Which my Dunsapy Theory says.

The only reason we have to use a controlled environment to study origins is because nature is no longer capable of producing and maintaining the conditions that were present at the time life began.

That is what I have been saying all along. the conditions on this earth are different, than at the start of life., and science does not know for sure what they were like. So they can only artificially try to simulate, something. But that only shows my theory correct.

How does this stuff just bounce off you, man? Do you not understand that the conditions produced by the experiment are the conditions of the environment as understood by the scientist? If I use the same environmental conditions in my experiment as I found for the time period I’m studying, how could my results not be relevant?

I'm not doing this just to be difficult.
What I am saying here, does make sense.
I just think , it takes awhile for it to sink in, because of the way science has thought all along. The answers for science, are typically done by experiments. And they learn a lot from this. And in many cases, they are proved or shown to be correct. I understand this.
When it comes to the start of life , science has no proof that life started from non life, or from intelligence. (creator.) But they feel so far that the evidence shows life comes from non life. But they can't prove or show that it does. So this idea is just and interpretation of what they have as evidence. But it is not proof.
Science wants to make life to say that what they have been saying all along is correct. But by experiment they can only show creation. The Dunsapy theory.

Do you not understand that the conditions produced by the experiment are the conditions of the environment as understood by the scientist?

As understood by the scientists , does not mean much, because they don't know exactly what the conditions were, or what it took for life to come about. it is only as guess.
And so far they have failed, so that means they don't know.

If I use the same environmental conditions in my experiment as I found for the time period I’m studying, how could my results not be relevant?

If you as a scientist setup the same conditions as at the time period you are looking at, how do you know that those condition were not set up like that in the first place. So that you are just copying the first experiment. or creation.
Maybe that's how God made life.
The bible says that God made man from the dust of the ground. Well isn't that what scientists are trying to do?

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Hi, Dunsapy.

Before I continue, I need to apologize for my rather arrogant and frustrated mood during that last post: it was the end of a long day of looking at dozens of almost-identical spiders (actually 4 different species) under a microscope and still not getting my data to show any obvious trends. And, I accidentally skipped lunch.

Thanks for not losing your cool back at me.

dunsapy writes: Bluejay writes: adj. 1. Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. 2. Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint. 3. Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior. 4. Growing without cultivation or human labor. 1 the DNA would give instructions for that to happen 2 same as one 3 not sure what you mean here. 4 wild plants do that all the time

This was a dictionary entry for "spontaneous" (the word "spontaneous" was a hyperlink to the page where I got the definition).

dunsapy writes: I think it is impossible to replicate everything in nature

I agree with you. But, the benefit of experimental studies is the ability to isolate a single variable and test it's individual effect on the organism or on the system that you're studying. So, for example, if we want to test the effect of water on the growth rate of fruit flies, we separate our flies into several groups, and feed all the groups the same thing, keep them all at the same temperature and humidity, rear them all from the genetic lineages, etc., then we only change the amount of water we give the different groups. Then, we can show how the amount of water individually affects the system.

The same is true for any indirect study. If we wanted to test what effect a volcano eruption would have (your example), we replicate the effects of a volcano eruption in our experimental setup. Granted, Miller and Urey didn't do this: they only had their one microcosm (probably because of cost restraints). But, if you've ever done chemistry experiments, you know that chemicals don't really display a wide range of different behaviors in relation to the same treatments (like spiders do).

So, since the rocks can tell us quite a lot about what chemicals were present at the time of their formation, we do[ know a whole lot about the environment during the time period where life first began to appear, because chemistry is chemistry---excess sulfur in the rocks indicates volcanism; excess uranium indicates meteorite impacts, banded iron formations indicate iron and oxygen in water, etc. It's quite good evidence, too.

It’s still not perfect, as you say, but this is by far the best way we have to find the answer to the question of how life came about.

-----

dunsapy writes: …the conditions on this earth are different, than at the start of life., and science does not know for sure what they were like. So they can only artificially try to simulate, something. But that only shows my theory correct.

Your last sentence here doesn't follow from the preceding statements. That's called a "non sequitur."

What your argument doesn’t take into account is that intelligence has the ability to mimic nature.

You're an artist, so let's use an art example here. Say you're making a sculpture of a small aspen tree in the park. When you’ve completed the sculpture, it looks just like the tree, except it’s made of clay. You have shown that intelligence can create the complex shape of a tree. But, have you shown that intelligence created the tree itself?

Keep in mind that the tree grew from a tiny seed, over several years, into its current shape, but you probably molded/sculpted/pinched the sculpture into the same shape in just a few sittings. You used a different method, but you arrived at the same result (the shape of the tree). So, the fact that you reproduced the tree’s shape by molding/sculpting/pinching does not prove that the actual tree’s shape was produced that same way.

This is the same as the experimental design analogy I’ve been clumsily trying to express since the beginning of the thread. A scientist reproducing the conditions of early earth by intelligent design does not prove that the conditions of early earth were originally produced by intelligent design, anymore than your sculpting of a tree’s shape proves that the original tree’s shape was produced by sculpting.

Dunsapy Theory is a non sequitur.

---

-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes: By the experiments so far all have failed,so a court of law would not even let this get to trial.

I felt this was important to address.

The experiments did not fail.

Creationists have always approached these experiments as if the point of them was to create life. This simply is not true: many of the scientists probably had hopes that they could create life, but none of them realistically expected complete and living cells to pop out of their flasks.

Life consists of lots of internetworking chemical reactions housed together in a discreet compartment. The ability to spontaneously initiate these chemical reactions by producing the right molecules, getting them into the right conformations, and causing them to form complex structures, is all that is required to illucidate the transition from non-life to life. We have not, so far, reproduced the processes by which the entire machine is assembled, but we have learned how to produce dozens of the individual parts, and how to get them into the right conformations and to get them to start interacting. And, we've done it all using stimuli that nature could easily provide for itself: that's the point of these studies---to see what nature could have done by itself, not what science can do.

As of right now, no one has uncovered any reason to suspect that anything but spontaneity is needed.

We have not had to add anything to the mix that nature wasn’t fully capable of supplying. So, of all the steps we've looked at extensively, we haven’t run into a single one that nature couldn’t do on its own.

dunsapy writes: By the experiments so far all have failed,so a court of law would not even let this get to trial.

I know this isn't quite applicable, but I'm sure you've heard of Kitzmiller v. Dover? Or the Scopes Trial? It seems that the courts disagree with you. :)

---

-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.

First of all thanks for the reply.
And I would not mind your job at all.

What your argument doesn’t take into account is that intelligence has the ability to mimic nature. You're an artist, so let's use an art example here. Say you're making a sculpture of a small aspen tree in the park. When you’ve completed the sculpture, it looks just like the tree, except it’s made of clay. You have shown that intelligence can create the complex shape of a tree. But, have you shown that intelligence created the tree itself? Keep in mind that the tree grew from a tiny seed, over several years, into its current shape, but you probably molded/sculpted/pinched the sculpture into the same shape in just a few sittings. You used a different method, but you arrived at the same result (the shape of the tree). So, the fact that you reproduced the tree’s shape by molding/sculpting/pinching does not prove that the actual tree’s shape was produced that same way. This is the same as the experimental design analogy I’ve been clumsily trying to express since the beginning of the thread. A scientist reproducing the conditions of early earth by intelligent design does not prove that the conditions of early earth were originally produced by intelligent design, anymore than your sculpting of a tree’s shape proves that the original tree’s shape was produced by sculpting.

Man can mimic nature only to a very limited degree. For instance I can't create life ,science has not been able to create life. I maybe able to sculpt a tree to look like a tree, but that's all it is. It doesn't reproduce itself, or change the enviroment.

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.

What this is saying, if man figured out how life got started,
so say it is
x + y + stirred 4 times = z . If a scientist showed this in an experiment by mixing x+y + stirred 4 times. And it worked. Because it was done in an experiment, all that they could say was that it was done with the use of intelligence. Because the experiment was limited to that.

1 If they laid it on the ground and did not stir it, but just set up the materials. It may lay there forever, and nothing happens.

2 If they laid it on the ground and did not stir it, but just set up the materials. It may lay there until a earth quake happens, and stirs it 4 times. And it works.

3 If they laid it on the ground and did not stir it, but just set up the materials. It may lay there until God comes and stirs it. And it works.

4 If they laid it on the ground and did not stir it, but just set up the materials. It may lay there until a scientist does come along and stirs it. And it works.

Three of these conditions are successful,

Two of them require intelligence.

Because the scientist came along stirred it it only shows creation.
If he did nothing, and just left it, that is the only way he can prove , that life could have started on it's own.

Does this make sense?

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

I noticed an error in my example in the preceding post, I have corrected here.

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.

What this is saying, if man figured out how life got started,
so say it is
x + y + stirred 4 times = z . If a scientist showed this in an experiment by mixing x+y + stirred 4 times. And it worked. Because it was done in an experiment, all that they could say was that it was done with the use of intelligence. Because the experiment was limited to that.

1 In natural conditions. The ground. may lay there forever, and nothing happens.

2 In natural conditions. The ground, just lays there until an earth quake happens, and stirs it 4 times. And it works.

3 In natural conditions. The ground, may lay there until God comes and stirs it. And it works.

4 If scientists set up an experiment, on the ground, it may lay there until a scientist does come along and stirs it. And it works.

Three of these conditions are successful,

Two of them require intelligence.

Because the scientist came along stirred it it only shows creation.
If he did nothing, and just left it, that is the only way he can prove , that life could have started on it's own.

Now does this make better sense?

Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes: What this is saying, if man figured out how life got started, so say it is x + y + stirred 4 times = z .

Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier. :)

But, you're still approaching it as if origins scientists set up their experiments solely to create life. Granted, every one of them (and every one of us other biology people) hopes that the set of experiments eventually will produce life, but they aren't doing it to test their ability to create life: they’re doing it to test the early environment’s ability to create life.

If the point was just to create life, then everybody would probably be doing it the same way Craig Venter is trying. But, genetic engineering and nanoconstruction isn’t going to tell us anything about the actual origin of life. So, we’re not doing it that way: we’re trying to do it the way nature did it. It’s much more complicated this way, because we still haven’t figured out exactly how nature did do it.

dunsapy writes: Three of these conditions are successful, Two of them require intelligence.

How would you distinguish the results of the earthquake treatment from the results of the scientist-stirring and God-stirring treatments? In other words, what is the difference between a man shaking a liquid and nature shaking the liquid?

If you cannot distinguish the results of the human-caused and nature-caused trials, then you can’t make the claim that experimental manipulation changes the results. You also can’t make the claim that experimental conditions are required to make the process happen, because the effects of natural and artificial treatments are indistinguishable.

All you can say is that the conditions you subject your experiment to are capable of producing the results you got. And, if you can show that your experimental conditions would have the same effects as the early environmental conditions, you have proven that life could have been started by those conditions alone. Since the experimental conditions in the origins experiments are based on evidence from the time period in question, the experiments directly test those conditions. That makes the identity of the stirrer irrelevant to the question at hand.

dunsapy writes: Because the scientist came along stirred it it only shows creation. If he did nothing, and just left it, that is the only way he can prove , that life could have started on it's own.

Even then, you can’t prove it. What’s to stop God from sending an earthquake to stir up the puddle and start life? Furthermore, how would you know that any given earthquake wasn’t somehow God’s doing? So, all three of the ideas would be consistent with God. That’s what makes the “Goddunnit” hypothesis useless: if you wanted to test three ideas, and “Goddunnit” could be associated with any of the three, how could you use “Goddunnit” to distinguish between the three? You’d never know which of the three was right.

dunsapy writes: Because it was done in an experiment, all that they could say was that it was done with the use of intelligence.

In the tree-sculpture analogy, you have shown how your sculpting methods could produce the complex shape of a tree. But, once again, the experimental set-up for the origins experiments is not the equivalent of sculpting a tree’s shape out of clay: they are the equivalent of trying to get an artificial seed to grow into the shape of a tree.

They are not mimicking the results of nature: they are mimicking the methods of nature.

---

-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.

[qs] Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier

[qs] Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier

[qs] Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier

sorry something wrong with he message I sent, will do it over.

Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier
thats what I need. :)

People are missing the point here. My theory is just about the experiment itself, not about the results . The illustration I used, gives 4 possibilities. ( I'm trying to keep this simple)
1 leave it alone, nothing may happen but leave it alone. #2 may happen
2 leave it alone, conditions in the early earth may trigger life it on it's own. No intelligence involved .
3 God did it.
4 science set up an experiment and did it.
Because science did it in a simulation, doesn't mean it could not have happen in the natural world. #2.
But because science did it with intelligence, only shows # 3 or #4. The only way science can show #2 is by leaving it alone.
So my theory just says that. It is not questioning that it had to be creation, because this illustration shows that it could happen on it's own.