Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,061 Year: 5,318/9,624 Month: 343/323 Week: 187/160 Day: 4/19 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)
Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 47 of 81 (483926)
09-24-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Blue Jay
09-24-2008 4:39 PM

you have been good to me, indulging my idea's here
Thank you for that.
We have a parent, that has been doing down hill, now is really going.
I'm going to leave off. He in another town , so for the next while I will be coming and going for days at a time . I think.
So I wanted to let you know so you are not waiting for answers that might not come .
Some how these things aren't that important.
but thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 09-24-2008 4:39 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-25-2008 1:27 PM dunsapy has replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 49 of 81 (484589)
09-29-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blue Jay
09-25-2008 1:27 PM

Hi bluejay.
I'm back. We will be going to the funeral this weekend. So I will be there for a few days then.
I was thinking about, what, I could say to you, about what we were discussing.
I was trying to attack my theory, from all angles. I have more confidence then ever about it.
By scientists doing the experiment , does not show that it could have happened on it's own.
Science does not know the conditions at the start to life,( what they know now could change with more research)
Even if they succeeded, that in itself does not say how it actually happened, ( it just says how they did it)( Dunsapy theory)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 09-25-2008 1:27 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2008 3:58 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 52 of 81 (484680)
09-30-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blue Jay
09-30-2008 4:30 PM

Re: Experiments
But, in actuality (at least in cases like Miller-Urey), it’s more akin to a scientist saying, “let’s see what happens when we throw this in there.” You can hardly group that with “intelligent design,” don’t you think? There really isn’t any intelligence involved in the processes that occur inside the experimental container: they are effectively outside of the scientist’s control
actually this is exactly what intelligent design is. Sometimes you know how to go about , doing the experiment. Sometimes you guess, and it seems a lot of the time it's by mistake in the lab.
But the results are all intelligent design. You have set up the conditions, you are trying different things, even if you accidentally , mix something, you have still set up artificial conditions.( this accident may not have been possible out side the lab.)
Now, it may come to a point where we realize that life required an extremely specific sequence of events to happen in a very precise manner in order for life to form, but I personally doubt that this is the case. If such a circumstance comes to pass, then the carefully-choreographed jolts, irradiations and other interferences that a scientist would have to simulate to make life could be seen as potentially supporting Dunsapy Theory.
Science does not know how complicated , or how precise , things have to be to make life come about. They could be 100's of years from even coming close. They just don't know.
They may just find that they are unable to do it at all. ( though the bible does say that it maybe possible for man to do these types of things) ( I don't know if you knew the bible said that or not )
Bluejay the theory is correct, I would not be banging my head against the wall, as I have, if I was not totally convinced.
I have been attacked sometimes more than the theory has.
On the other hand, if life forms rather readily under the correct circumstances, without any need for a specific regime of precision stimuli along the way, it would be very difficult for Dunsapy Theory to receive any sort of credibility. If life forms from chemicals just sitting in a pond, then there is no need to replicate volcanoes and earthquakes and varying wind currents, because we will have shown that such things are not necessary, and because we have ample observational evidence to show that life can survive such traumas.
This is true. But my theory does say if left alone, and in the uncontaminated place, these things happened and produced life from non life, this the only way science could show this to be true. But life forms in a pond on earth, does not mean they are the start of life, they could be just part of life.
But, if the exact regime and sequence of interferences turns out to be crucial, scientists will have to incorporate all sorts of experimental controls to ensure that their results are applicable. But, that doesn’t bother me: science is very good at figuring out how to make controls.
This is true, science is good at that type of thing.
I am not sure that science will actually make life from non life.
I am much more sure that science will not find life on other planets.
The earth is just too well setup for life,as compared to other planets, found so far.
We are finding now, that even little changes can cause great havoc. Even in a protected planet like ours.
Anyway do you think you can accept my theory so far?
I have some other ideas that go along with this you maybe interested in ?
Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2008 4:30 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 12:20 PM dunsapy has replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 54 of 81 (484763)
10-01-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Blue Jay
10-01-2008 12:20 PM

Re: Non Sequitur
I don't want to frustrate you, but sometimes change is hard.
I want to address the points you mentioned.
So I will try again. If I miss one please repeat it.
I think what you are saying is the point 1 and and 2 you agree with.
But point 3 the Dunsapy theory, you are still unsure about .
OK I get that
1 Science can’t know for certain. Science can know just as certainly about abiogenesis as you can know that they can’t know. Uncertainty applies to all arguments, including yours. So, I could easily make the same case against your argument that you’re making against mine, and my argument would have all the power that you ascribe to yours. Therefore, if your argument succeeds, it also defeats itself.
Experimental conditions are artificial. I have shown you how artificial conditions can simulate/replicate natural conditions (airplane cabins and tree sculptures). I could go through my primary literature database and pull out all of the papers I can find where an experimental study was found to accurately simulate the natural world, if you’d like (but it would be a major pain in the butt, because there are a whole lot of them). So, the mere fact that an experiment is artificial is not evidence that the experiment's conclusions are unapplicable to natural systems.
Things can be done, in experiments that happen in the natural world. I agree, with this.
I never said they couldn't. There are lots of examples of this. My theory does not dispute that.
Look at it like this ,
You find a loaf of bread, on the road way.
I can make bread( create). I get flour ( that's processed), sugar( that 's processed), salt, etc. I put and mix all the elements together , let it rise , then put it in the oven for at a certain temperature , and let it bake for a certain time.( this is the experiment)
This experiment was successful, I made bread.
But to prove that bread was made, just from the natural world without any intelligence. You could only observe from a distance.
Now there are many types of bread , the experiment only showed 1 type. So the experiment may not have been perfect, ( as to what elements that went in to the bread, or the baking conditions), but you still have bread.)( different elements would make another type of bread) But you still have bread.
My theory only talks about the experiment itself, and that to prove it just happened on it's own, would have to observe.
Now for abiogenesis. If I go and wait at the road side, and a loaf of bread just appeared out of the ground, ready for eating, and no intelligence or passing truck or airplane , came by and just dropped it. The science might have something.( personally I've been waiting for a harley to show up in my driveway)
If I missed something let me know.
Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 12:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 2:08 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 56 of 81 (484767)
10-01-2008 2:16 PM

You just repeated "artificial conditions."
I have addressed this: it is fully possible for artificial conditions to simulate natural conditions.
Ok in the bread example, if you wanted to find out about it, what would you do as a scientist?

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 3:16 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 58 of 81 (484772)
10-01-2008 3:44 PM

I would start by looking for a good reason to think that bread could be formed naturally, such as fossil evidence of bread forming in the geological column or of some yeast-and-flour geyser in Sweden. If such evidence didn't exist, I wouldn't look into it.
But, if I found some evidence of the "first bread" and the conditions that were associated with its conception, then I would replicate those conditions to see if they could produce bread, or at least precursors to bread, such as an aqueous solution of yeast, flour and vanilla.
Does that sound reasonable?
Yes it does.
But, if I found some evidence of the "first bread" and the conditions that were associated with its conception, then I would replicate those conditions to see if they could produce bread, or at least precursors to bread, such as an aqueous solution of yeast, flour and vanilla.
Doing this experiment to make bread you have shown how a scientist could make bread, it doesn't show how it happened on it's own.( without the scientist there)
(Someone else could have made the bread just as you are doing.)
So what you would do is go this place, and observe if this could happen on it's own.
This is my complete , theory exactly.
Do you get this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 4:17 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 60 of 81 (484792)
10-01-2008 6:39 PM

I'm putting a lot of effort into this (I spent a total of four hours on my last three posts), but none of it is sinking in. You just keep repeating the same three or four lines, not understanding that none of them means anything in relation to my argument.
Why don't I just start writing, "Bluejay's Post" in my text area. Then, you can respond with, "artificial conditions," "you can't know for certain," "it doesn't prove how it happened on its own," and "so, therefore, Dunsapy Theory is correct." It would save me a lot of time and frustration, and we'd still be having essentially the same conversation from your point of view.
I can see you are getting frustrated. I am also.
My theory is really very simple, so the explanation of it doesn't have to be that complicated. It seems that the same conditions come up over and over.
If you really do not want to continue , I understand that.
I think we have discussed it pretty well anyway.
So thanks bluebird.
I would just like to mention, that my trust in a creator, ( rather than non creation) is in the design of the life we see.
Both in plant life and animal life.
ROMANS 1:20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;
I think this is absolutely true.
I have to out of town again, so I will check back, and see if you want to continue or not.

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Blue Jay, posted 10-01-2008 8:18 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 62 of 81 (484830)
10-02-2008 2:01 AM

I really don't understand why science is against this idea of mine.
I like science just as much as the next guy. I am for science. I am for learning, and I am for experimentation.
I think that, science doing experiments, is a good thing. Science has learned a lot from that.
All I am saying is that, in doing the experiment, only shows that , through the experiment ( with intelligence) all you can show is that intelligence was involved, to make the experiment work. It doesn't say anything about what could or did happen naturally. To find that out, you need to observe that in it's natural condition.
The idea of ice was put to me earlier
We observe ice forms when it is cold. Science comes along and finds out that , it now can take enough heat away so the that any water in a box will freeze.
The experiment only shows that it took intelligence to make ice in the box. But observation tells us that ice will also form under natural conditions.
This is exactly what my idea says.
I really don't see how this is such a big deal.
This has nothing to do with believing in a creator or not.
What I think happens is,that science wants to say life started by just natural forces without a creator. The trouble is, if science was able to create life in an experiment, they can't observe this in the natural state in early history. So they want to claim the experiment, as proof that life could have started this way. But the experiment can't do that. Only observation can do that.
I think people think that my theory, is about creation. It is not. It is simply about what the experiment, what it can show and what it can't.
It's is like the bread, example
Science can only show through experiment, that bread was made with a creator ( science).
But if science found that bread, just naturally formed , somewhere, then they could say it didn't need intelligence, to do it. But so far they can only say it took intelligence to make bread.
This is not that hard to understand. Science does not have to be afraid of this idea.
The only reason science might not like it, is that they may not be able to prove a preconceived idea, they have about the start to life.
But other than that what is the problem??
Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2008 1:32 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 63 of 81 (484867)
10-02-2008 12:02 PM

this is the kind of statment I get from science.
When the experiment is done it shows that when stirred four times it happens, intelligence is irrelevant. It does not matter. Intelligence is irrelevant, unimportant.
This is the attitude , that a lot of science, has. They don't want to hear anything but their preconceived ideas. But that is not science.
Science is supposed to have an open mind. But it is this kind of statement, that has held science back, when it comes to how life started or could start. They need a new direction, without the baggage. And and it doesn't have to be creation.
For instance, just try to create life in an experiment, don't try to replicate conditions that may have been here on the earth, at the start ( because science doesn't know what they were anyway). See if you can make life from non life. Sure, this only shows creation, but you would learn a lot from that. Then expand the experiments from there.
But trying to do it, to prove how life could have started, is only baggage.
This is what I meant earlier, about science is holding it's self back, by trying to prove a preconceived idea.
Do you get this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2008 2:04 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 66 of 81 (485165)
10-05-2008 11:02 PM

Hi bluejay I'm back
As an example of the implications, if we were to accept your idea as scientific, we would also conclude that the court system does not work, because most crimes are not witnessed directly.
In days past there was no DNA, finger prints, no blood type etc.
So in the early days they hoped for an eye witness. and used circumstantial evidence. Lots of people were convicted that were innocent. Today were have blood type, DNA, finger prints. But even with these things, they really like to get an eye witness. Because
DNA, finger prints, blood type, can often be explained in other ways. ( for instance they could have been best friends and DNA and finger prints, could be around , in the course of every day life. ) The best is an eye witness.( or better yet 2 or 3 eye witnesses)
Now with DNA , and finger prints. These things were checked out before they were used in a court of law. Fingers prints, were checked with thousands of prints to see if they were all different. The same with DNA, after it was discovered that everyone had different DNA, then it could be used.
But even with DNA and finger prints, some get off. Even though everything else says they are guilty. Some times it is how the evidence is viewed or interpreted . Sometimes by racial views. ( it shouldn't matter , put in our world it can)
The legal system is not perfect, and sometimes is just unjust. ( no matter what the evidence says) That is why some court cases can last a very long time. (They are not cut and dried) (My wife works in family law.)
People in law enforcement, will tell you how difficult it can be to get a conviction, from just evidence. Some times they need a lot of it, but an eye witness is the best. They spend a lot of time trying to track down eye witnesses.
This is what my theory says.
That's really the issue that science will take with your idea. Your argument effectively states that science is impotent. I don’t think you realize this, and I know you don’t think it, but this really is the gist of your argument. In order to declare anything as categorically impossible for science, you concomitantly declare science impotent. If you acknowledge that science even has a little power, then you also leave the door open for that little power to slowly accumulate over the years into virtual invincibility (that’s the whole concept of science, after all).
I do realize this. When I first thought up this idea , it took awhile for me to understand this. I can tell you I was a little nervous about it. But on thinking about this more, it doesn't have to be that big of a deal. For instance , it doesn't have to stop experimentation, and learning things. The only real thing, I think it does , is that it holds in check, the interpretation , of the experiments. ( which is the unknown)
Even though science swears up and down that they are not biassed towards a non creator, start to life, what they say and do , does not agree with that. They are trying to prove a non creation start to life.
Effectively, your argument rests on the idea that, “If you cannot know everything, you cannot know anything,” which is just a fancy way of banking on the margin of error (which science does have the power to minimize into irrelevance, if given enough time and resources), no matter how small that margin may be.
That’s the issue that we will take with your argument. Your argument is simply taking the concept of a margin of error and inflating it to claim that scientific endeavours are awash in vast clouds of uncertainty to the extent that scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all. I know that you, personally, do not believe this, but this really is what your proposed idea means.
No , this is not what I am saying at all. My theory states, that the experiment, just shows creation because it takes intelligence to set things up, and speed things up to get a result.
Science could be right on with conditions, materials, etc. But you would never know that, unless you saw it happen on it's own. The experiment does not tell you, that. ( a creator could have done the same things as the scientists did in their experiment.)
It is only circumstantial, evidence. You really need an eye witness.
I think science is already coming to that conclusion , anyway, with theories like abiogenesis. It's just that they don't know it yet.

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 67 of 81 (485166)
10-05-2008 11:07 PM

Yes, I get it. This is a very fine line that has to be monitored all the time. But, I can assure you that there are a sufficient number of different opinions in science to keep the entire system mostly in check.
This is exactly the point. If the evidence was so correct, or there was so much evidence, there should be no different opinions. In a court of law this would not be enough to pronounce a judgement. ( if all the experts, contradicted each other )

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 68 of 81 (485167)
10-05-2008 11:11 PM

There is no attitude of atheism in science, despite what creationists and Christians claim. I am a Christian myself, a member of a priesthood and a clerk. But, when I do science, I never introduce “God did it” into my considerations, because it doesn’t really answer the question. If I were to propose, “God did it,” in a scientific discussion, the obvious follow-up question from the audience would inevitably have to be, “How did God do it?”
This is why science is doing the experiments. No problem with that at all. I like to know the answers of how it was done myself.

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 69 of 81 (485169)
10-05-2008 11:21 PM

In the end, you still get back to “How?” So, why not just skip the middle question and just ask “how” from the beginning, and let the religious in the group add God into it on their own?
But, the unwillingness of religious people to let an hour pass without God’s name being spoken has led to a lot of hard feelings on the part of atheists, and many atheistic scientists will get very upset about any mention of God at all. Pesonally, though, I don’t blame them for it: they didn’t do anything wrong, and it’s really the Christians’ demanding that God be part of every discussion that causes progress to be made.
I would never want God to be taught in the schools. Or even with science. Science should be open, take no sides. The trouble is, that science has taken a side, with only circumstantial evidence. If they had not said anything, one way or the other , creation or non creation. There would not be a problem. If they had proof of something that would be different, but they don't. I think this is were the differences come from.

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 70 of 81 (485172)
10-05-2008 11:46 PM

And, I think this is the only thing you’ve ever said that I find genuinely offensive.
What you are calling “preconceived ideas” are actually long series of carefully constructed, heavily analyzed and meticulously scrutinized experiments. Science is designed to build upon pre-existing science. You don’t erase the slate every time you do a new experiment: you take what you learned from the last experiment and apply it to your next experiment. The "baggage," as you call it, is only the knowledge that previous science has produced. You can't just ignore that. Otherwise, how could science ever get past the first step?
I understand, what you say here. But I think this is the problem. Science, starting with Darwin( I use him because he is the most well known one), have gotten on a path that has taken them, to conclude something with out proof.
If you take just the fossil records, there is nothing there that can't be explained by creation. Science has had hoax's in the past, misinterpretations of bones etc. Science is not that reliable, so far. Scientists disagree with other scientists, on many of these questions. It's not as though it was set in stone!( I know,... bad joke)
I can say God used , one animal then built on it to make another, he used DNA and manipulated it into all sorts of creatures, etc. That's why there are feathers, instead of fur, etc.

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Blue Jay, posted 10-06-2008 12:04 PM dunsapy has not replied

Member (Idle past 5757 days)
Posts: 76
Joined: 09-19-2008

Message 72 of 81 (485220)
10-06-2008 12:12 PM

Did you mean to put two S’s in “biassed”? That’s like saying we’re asses twice! Or that we have two rear ends!
Ha ha ha ..sorry about that

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024