Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
97 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,688 Year: 3,334/14,102 Month: 275/724 Week: 33/91 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 21 of 81 (483341)
09-21-2008 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 12:39 PM


Re: Starting Conditions
A lot of work has been done on the chemistry of rocks and minerals. I am not a geologist, but I was, once upon a time, a biochemistry major. Certain types of rocks and certain features in rocks occur under very specific circumstances. Looking at rocks that date the approximate ages of life's suspected emergence, a geologist could tell you a lot about what sort of chemical conditions existed at the time that those rocks were formed, simply because they know what conditions would cause those rocks to form.

An example I know about is banded iron formations, which form in the presence of oxygen. If oxygen is not present in water, iron simply dissolves in the water. But, if oxygen is present in the water, the iron bonds to the oxygen (creating iron oxides), and drops to the bottom of the sea. So, where banded iron formations are found, you can bet there was oxygen and iron in the oceans at that time.

I found this idea interesting. because of the oxygen and and iron oxide.
In the starting of life , you have 2 forms of life one is vegetation, the other is animal life.
To do with the conditions of the earth which one ,would have had to be formed first? Which ever one you picked , how did the other get started? Vegetation produces oxygen , would that help for the iron oxide?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 12:39 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 8:05 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 25 of 81 (483384)
09-21-2008 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 7:42 PM


Re: Experiments
dunsapy writes:
Their experiment only shows that in an experiment, science showed that life could be formed. They did not show that it could happen on it's own.
Do you agree with this?

No.

The experiment attempts to mimic the conditions of early Earth. Nothing was added that wasn’t in the early-earth environment. If the experiment succeeds, it will prove that early-earth conditions can lead to life on their own, because the experimental conditions are the same as the early-earth conditions.

How do you know that ? Can you prove that?. How do you prove that? I can make up conditions that would support life, in an experiment. But that does not tell you , what the conditions were, at the beginning. Science does experiments all the time like DDT, for it to back fire. Because they don't understand the consequences, or the effects . Science went to Mars to find water, and hopefully life . Only to find that the conditions would kill the start to life. They jumped up and down when found water and then you didn't hear from them when they found that the soil would kill life. They do not know these things. They can only make an educated guess. But that is not saying that the conditions were as exactly as they say.

I could say a creator set up the conditions, and then made life. Can science prove that was not what happened?

Can science prove exactly what all the conditions of the earth were before life?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 7:42 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dunsapy, posted 09-21-2008 9:34 PM dunsapy has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:13 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 26 of 81 (483387)
09-21-2008 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by dunsapy
09-21-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Experiments
The atmospheres and conditions, we see on other planets, including Mars , would not support life. Why would the earth be any different? Why is it so different?
For science to really know for sure they would have to find another planet, and watch from a distance. ( so as no to compromise it) Doing the experiments, nullifies the the out come.

Science tells us that it probably took life a long time to form.
Do you think this is correct and does science have proof for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dunsapy, posted 09-21-2008 9:23 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:13 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 29 of 81 (483404)
09-22-2008 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 11:13 PM


Re: Experiments
The reason I am asking and repeating these questions is that, science can not say for sure or prove what conditions were. They may have a educated idea, but that is not the same thing. In a period of say a million years, can they adjust there experiment to match different conditions over this period of time? How could they?
So the answer has to be NO. they don't know. ( If they did know they would have done it)

Miller and Urey failed in their experiments. That could be for many reasons, but it shows that so far Science does not know how to make life from non life.
So the answer has to be NO. They do not know how to create life, or set up the right conditions.

The reason I mentioned about the time period , for life to form, is that the simulation to make life, in an experiment would have to take the same amount of time. To change that, is to change the conditions of the experiment.( I have been told millions of years) If this is so the, experiment would have to take the same length of time. In an experiment of that duration, who knows that maybe some radiation would come along and kill off what had started. But in an controlled enviroment that might not happen. Which makes the experiment void.
So NO,
All these have to be NO, if science did do it in an experiment. all they could show is intelligence or creation.
The Dunsapy Theory is correct.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Edited by dunsapy, : changed a couple of words


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:13 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2008 10:44 AM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 31 of 81 (483455)
09-22-2008 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Blue Jay
09-22-2008 10:44 AM


Re: Experiments
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2008 10:44 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2008 7:08 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 33 of 81 (483515)
09-22-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
09-22-2008 7:08 PM


Re: Experiments
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2008 7:08 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by dunsapy, posted 09-22-2008 9:45 PM dunsapy has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Blue Jay, posted 09-23-2008 11:54 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 34 of 81 (483518)
09-22-2008 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by dunsapy
09-22-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Experiments
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dunsapy, posted 09-22-2008 9:30 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2008 4:30 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 35 of 81 (483606)
09-23-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
09-22-2008 7:08 PM


Re: Experiments
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-22-2008 7:08 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 09-23-2008 11:35 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 38 of 81 (483742)
09-24-2008 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
09-23-2008 11:35 PM


Re: Experiments
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 09-23-2008 11:35 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 12:44 PM dunsapy has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 09-24-2008 2:10 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 39 of 81 (483824)
09-24-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by dunsapy
09-24-2008 12:52 AM


Re: Experiments
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 12:52 AM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 41 of 81 (483864)
09-24-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
09-24-2008 2:10 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 09-24-2008 2:10 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:04 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 42 of 81 (483865)
09-24-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dunsapy
09-24-2008 3:03 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:03 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 43 of 81 (483867)
09-24-2008 3:05 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:06 PM dunsapy has responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 44 of 81 (483868)
09-24-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by dunsapy
09-24-2008 3:05 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:05 PM dunsapy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:09 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

  
dunsapy
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008


Message 45 of 81 (483869)
09-24-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by dunsapy
09-24-2008 3:06 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dunsapy, posted 09-24-2008 3:06 PM dunsapy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 09-24-2008 4:39 PM dunsapy has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021