|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total) |
| |
FossilDiscovery | |
Percy | |
Total: 893,101 Year: 4,213/6,534 Month: 427/900 Week: 133/150 Day: 3/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
Only direct evidence.... This is what science is about. finding out through direct evidence , so there is no doubt. Anything short of perfection....
This is correct, but at least you would know that it could happen. And outside of an experiment. ( with intelligence)
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 1928 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dunsapy.
No, this is not what science is about. Did you even read my forensics/courtroom example?
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.
So, science would be much more credible if they... didn’t do science?
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).
No, it really can’t. Spontaneous: quote:
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.
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?
No. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
In the case of the start to life, you have no such evidence. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
1 the DNA would give instructions for that to happen 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.
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.
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.
I'm not doing this just to be difficult.
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 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. Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 1928 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
This was a dictionary entry for "spontaneous" (the word "spontaneous" was a hyperlink to the page where I got the definition).
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. -----
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 1928 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dunsapy.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
First of all thanks for the reply.
And I would not mind your job at all.
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.
What this is saying, if man figured out how life got started, 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. Does this make sense? Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
I noticed an error in my example in the preceding post, I have corrected here.
What this is saying, if man figured out how life got started, 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. Now does this make better sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 1928 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Dunsapy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
[qs] Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
[qs] Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
[qs] Maybe we should try it your way: it sounds easier
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
sorry something wrong with he message I sent, will do it over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dunsapy Member (Idle past 4880 days) Posts: 76 Joined: |
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022