Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
82 online now:
nwr (1 member, 81 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,071 Year: 5,183/6,534 Month: 26/577 Week: 14/80 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 50 of 81 (484656)
09-30-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by dunsapy
09-29-2008 7:04 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

Sorry to hear about your father(?).

But, welcome back.

dunsapy writes:

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)

Okay.

You seem to be arguing two different things, and I don't think I've done a good job distinguishing my arguments about them. Here's what I am seeing in your arguments (I may be exaggerating them just a little bit, just to make them sound more clear):

  1. Not all the evidence from the distant past is recoverable, so we will never be able to gain a complete picture of the conditions on the early earth.

  2. Doing an experiment interferes with the autonomy of the system, so that the processes that occur in the system will be significantly different in the lab than in the “real world.”

Let me state my position clearly:

  1. I agree that we will probably never infallibly prove what the exact details of the early earth’s environmental conditions were. That is a well-known and long-held tenet of scientific inquiry.

    In principle, if the conditions of the early earth were known, we could certainly show how they could spontaneously produce life by simulating those exact conditions in the laboratory.

    However, in practice, we can only show how conditions that are statistically similar to early-earth conditions can spontaneously produce life, for a variety of reasons: (1) we most likely will never actually figure out the exact conditions of the early earth, even with massive technological advancement; (2) statistics don’t really have the power to determine whether our experimental conditions are exactly identical in their effects to the conditions we are trying to duplicate (even if we know them exactly); and, (3) we might (and probably will) miss something, at least on our first few (dozen) times.

    The point of science is not really to find actual truth, but to narrow the discrepancy between "practice" and "principle." As knowledge of and evidence for a specific theory increase, the likelihood that the theory is correct also increases. In many cases, the likelihood of correctness can be (and has been) elevated so high that it is virtually indistinguishable from absolute certainty. Thus, you'll often see scientists who regard evolution (a theory) as an absolute fact, simply because the evidence and results are so accurate and so legion that there is no practical reason to even consider the miniscule possibility that it's incorrect.

    Now, nobody is going to contend that abiogenesis has reached that level of accuracy. But, to extrapolate the current standing of the theory into the indefinite future in an attempt to put some sort of boundaries on what we may or not be able to figure out is really an invalid approach, because we have no idea what the actual or practical constraints on future science will be.

  2. I disagree that experiments inherently compromise the integrity of the system being questioned, at least in principle. It is, in principle, possible to simulate all meaningful factors in a laboratory experiment.

    Consider an airplane or a space shuttle, which flies kilometers off the ground. It maintains the same (or very similar) atmospheric pressure, temperature and chemical composition as it first collected on the ground throughout its flight, even though the conditions outside the windows are very different in regards to all three of those factors.

    So, if controlled conditions can maintain an environment like the surface conditions (in regards to temperature, pressure and chemical composition), why can they not maintain an environment like the early-earth conditions? I will grant you that maintaining early earth conditions would be a much more complex proposition than maintaining the atmosphere of an airplane, but this doesn’t inherently imply that maintenance of more complex conditions is impossible. It is fully possible (though perhaps not currently practical) to maintain an environment wherein temperature, air pressure, chemical composition, air currents, seismic activity, photoperiod, etc., are very similar to their state in the early earth.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by dunsapy, posted 09-29-2008 7:04 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 51 of 81 (484657)
09-30-2008 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by dunsapy
09-22-2008 9:45 PM


Re: Experiments
Hi, Dunsapy.

There is one other point that I'd like to address, based on this example that you brought up:

dunsapy writes:

If a volcano erupted and darkened the sky for six months, in the year 12 of the millions of years, would you replicate that.

There are two things to consider with this:

  • If a puddle of chemicals that is haphazardly zapped and/or UV-irradiated produces life, then this is definitive proof of the principle that life can arise from non-life without guidance, and the only question remaining would be the exact way it happened in nature.

  • We know that life is still present on earth, so it’s not too much of a stretch to assume that life survived anything that happened between its inception and today, so, unless a volcano eruption is needed to complete the formation of a cell, there’s really no need to consider it.

I have tried to explain experimental design several times already.

You seem to see the experiment as a scientist carefully manipulating the system until it does what he wants it to, and he publishes a paper showing how he produced the results that he wanted.

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.

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.

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.

I do not personally think we’ll find that the recipe for life includes, “zap with lightning, then stir, then let sit for seven thousand years, then zap again, then dilute, and shake with a 4-minute earthquake, etc...” I tend to think the process was much more gradualistic and much less reliant on a precision regime of coincidences.

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.

-----

Well, now that I've written a novel (and it's sequel), I guess I'll get to wait a week for you to get it all read! :)

-----

Edited by Bluejay, : Added tip about editing.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by dunsapy, posted 09-22-2008 9:45 PM dunsapy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by dunsapy, posted 09-30-2008 8:55 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 53 of 81 (484747)
10-01-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by dunsapy
09-30-2008 8:55 PM


Non Sequitur
Dunsapy,

Forgive me if you take this as a personal attack, but I’m really starting to get frustrated here.

Can you give me a reason why I should continue trying to debate with you?

Every single post that you have made consists of only three points:

  1. Science can’t know for certain
  2. Experimental conditions are artificial
  3. Therefore, Dunsapy Theory is correct

I'll willingly admit that I am not the most articulate person in the world. But, I am getting rather frustrated that you aren't even understanding what it is that I'm saying.

Please notice that I have only disagreed with one of your three points (i.e., #3). My argument has been showing you that points #1 and #2 do not lead to point #3. Look:

  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.
  2. 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.

Notice that I have not, with this argument, disagreed with either of your points. I have shown how your two points do not lead to your conclusion that re-enacting the origin of life only proves intelligent design.

Now, in your next post, please do not repeat “artificial conditions” and “uncertainty,” because these two things do not support your argument.

Edited by Bluejay, : Clarification


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by dunsapy, posted 09-30-2008 8:55 PM dunsapy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 1:57 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 55 of 81 (484764)
10-01-2008 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 1:57 PM


Re: Non Sequitur
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

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 .

No, I'm not "unsure" about Dunsapy Theory. I am sure that Dunsapy Theory is incorrect.

dunsapy writes:

But to prove that bread was made, just from the natural world without any intelligence. You could only observe from a distance...

...My theory only talks about the experiment itself, and that to prove it just happened on it's own, would have to observe.

You just repeated "artificial conditions."

I have addressed this: it is fully possible for artificial conditions to simulate natural conditions.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 1:57 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 57 of 81 (484771)
10-01-2008 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 2:16 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Ok in the bread example, if you wanted to find out about it, what would you do as a scientist?

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?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 2:16 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 59 of 81 (484773)
10-01-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 3:44 PM


Bluejay's Post
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Do you get this?

I know exactly what you are saying. I always have.

I am objecting because you are wrong.

dunsapy writes:

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.)

Dunsapy, this is almost, word for word, the same assertion that you made at the beginning, except you've inserted "bread" in place of "life."

I have tried several times to address this from several different angles of attack, but, no matter what I do, you just respond with exactly the same line.

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.

Edited by Bluejay, : Clarification


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 3:44 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 61 of 81 (484814)
10-01-2008 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by dunsapy
10-01-2008 6:39 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

I can see you are getting frustrated. I am also.

I used to think of myself as a nice, considerate, polite person.

I've had one too many debates with creationists, and I find it extremely hard to keep my temper in check. Maybe being nice all those years was really just bottling it up, and I'm finally losing my composure.

dunsapy writes:

My theory is really very simple, so the explanation of it doesn't have to be that complicated.

quote:
Seek simplicity... and distrust it.

-Alfred Whitehead

;)

-----

If you want your theory to be that science can't know things for certain, I'm fine with that. But, your conclusion that lab experiments into origins can only prove intelligent design is a non sequitur. It would prove that intelligence can set up the conditions necessary, but it can do more than that: because it's based on physical evidence from nature, with time, it can show how nature did it.

Lab experiments can be set up, but they can't be "controlled" like clockwork or some other machine: you have to leave it open for the system to act in some way, or else you don't learn about the system. In other words, you have to set it up specifically so that something in the system is not under your control, because, if it were under your control, you could only show your own capacity, and not the system's capacity.

When the system is allowed to act independently, the only way "intelligent design" applies is in guiding natural processes. But, they’re still natural processes.

Accident is not design. Intelligent design "theory" explicitly states that life (indeed, the whole universe) could not have happened by accident.

Chemistry under supervision is not design. That's just chemistry.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by dunsapy, posted 10-01-2008 6:39 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 64 of 81 (484873)
10-02-2008 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by dunsapy
10-02-2008 2:01 AM


Uncertainty
Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

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.

Well, if you had stuck to saying "...doesn't say exactly what did happen," you'd be right. But, the experiment does have the power to say what could have happened, and it also has the power to say something about with did happen.

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.

Just as you don’t need to actually see the murder to know who did it and how it went down, you also don’t need to actually see the origin of life to know how it went down.

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).

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.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dunsapy, posted 10-02-2008 2:01 AM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 65 of 81 (484874)
10-02-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by dunsapy
10-02-2008 12:02 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Do you get this?

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.

dunsapy writes:

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.

Would it then be your argument that an earthquake could not stir the substance four times?

“Irrelevant” doesn’t mean “non-existent”: it only means that the system still functions without considering it. If an earthquake can stir a puddle four times, who cares if the earthquake was natural or God-created? Wouldn’t the results still be the same?

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?”

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.

dunsapy writes:

This is what I meant earlier, about science is holding it's self back, by trying to prove a preconceived idea.

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?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by dunsapy, posted 10-02-2008 12:02 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 71 of 81 (485216)
10-06-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dunsapy
10-05-2008 11:46 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

Hi bluejay I'm back.

Wow. Are you ever!

Welcome back!

dunsapy writes:

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.

Have you ever seen the show "House"? One of House's favorite lines is, "the symptoms don't lie, but the patient can." It's the same for witnesses: they can lie, and it's a lot easier to discredit an eyewitness than it is to discredit a fingerprint on the murder weapon.

dunsapy writes:

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.

But, there is proof.

Consider this:

14 billion years ago, there aren't even chemicals in the universe yet, let alone life.

4 billion years ago, there is an earth, but no life.

3.5 billion years ago, there is evidence of simple life on earth.

Today, there is life on earth.

Where did it come from? Whatever you do, you have to trace the universe back to a point where there was no life. Therefore, at some point in the past, life had to have come from non-life.

The next question is, “How?”

Either “intelligent design” or “natural processes,” right? Those are the two basic possibilities, right?

But, wait. Are there really to answers there? After all, even if “natural processe” proved correct, a creationist could just say that God could have worked by natural processes. So, either answer could be fully consistent with intelligent design. So, can you really even test the “intelligent design” hypothesis of origins?

No. So, how about we don’t bother trying? Let’s just focus on the one idea that we can test.

When Miller and Urey showed the biomolecules can form under lifeless conditions, and when other scientists subsequently showed that other biomolecules can form even in space, when other scientists showed that RNA can catalyze its own replication, when other scientists discovered how natural conditions can produce homochirality, we have discovered all the hallmarks of biochemistry occurring naturally. This is the foundation of the theory that the origin of life does not require intelligent intervention.

That's a lot of evidence for natural causation.

The next logical step is to try to see how far this trend of natural causation goes. The best available way to do that is to simulate early-earth conditions in the laboratory. It will not produce perfect results, but it will produce relevant results. And, the results will only get better as time goes on. To pronounce now, in the early stages of a science, what that science will and will not be able to figure out in the indefinite future is foolhardy and completely unfounded. The Wright brothers thought flight over 100 mph would never be possible based on the practical constraints they faced in designing their flyers. Aircraft broke the speed of sound just a little over half a century later.

Again, if we had the ability to see what actually happened by going back in time, it would be a lot easier to figure out what actually happened. But, this in no way means that we can’t figure it out some other way, unless you insist that circumstantial and indirect evidence are impotent.

-----

dunsapy writes:

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.

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! :D

They are trying to discover a naturalistic start to life. Here is a thread started by creationist Wumpini about a poll that found that 40% of scientists believe in God. I personally was “converted” to evolution by professors at a religious university (Brigham Young University), in which all full-time faculty had to be devout and “worthy” members of the LDS Church: the people who taught me evolution were bishops and elders and high priests in my church! They were not trying to teach me that there was no Creator, but that naturalism is the only way to accurately study the natural world. Naturalism, like everything else in this universe, is fully compatible with a Creator.

-----

dunsapy writes:

Bluejay writes:

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.

You cannot say that lab experiments can only prove creation without also saying that all lab experiments are impotent at producing information relevant to the natural systems. Both are logical consequences of the argument you are making: if one is true, the other is also. There is no way around this unless you’re only arguing that there is a margin of error (a trivially valid argument that is called “God of the Gaps”).

-----

dunsapy writes:

If the evidence was so correct, or there was so much evidence, there should be no different opinions.

In the science of origins, the evidence is currently consistent with at least half a dozen different models. Every one of these models rests on the same basic premise: that life arose in the early environment from naturally-occurring chemical processes. Some people claim that clay formations served as a substrate that facilitated abiogenesis. Some people claim that benthic hot springs are the most likely place where life started. Some people claim that life could start in shallow puddles. Nobody has any evidence for these exact models yet.

But, every one of these models is based on the same premises. There is no major disagreement on those basic premises. No one has yet tested the viability of the various models yet.

-----

dunsapy writes:

If you take just the fossil records, there is nothing there that can't be explained by creation.

This is because there exists nothing in the entire universe that can’t be subsumed into creationism. “Creation” is not a model of the universe: it is just an assertion that some incomprehensible power was somehow involved (perhaps undetectably so) in whatever process did happen. Evolution and abiogenesis are also both compatible with creationism.

THERE IS NO VALUE IN STUDYING CREATIONISM, BECAUSE IT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO SUBSUME LITERALLY ANYTHING INTO ITSELF, THUS RENDERING ITSELF INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING UNIQUE INFORMATION AND PREVENTING ANY EVIDENCE FROM DISCREDITING IT.

I keep trying to tell creationists to back off and let science answer all the questions, and I’d be happy to let them add, “And God did it,” at the end of all my sentences.

Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dunsapy, posted 10-05-2008 11:46 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 74 of 81 (485231)
10-06-2008 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by dunsapy
10-06-2008 1:07 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

I think you missed the point about DNA. You can have a theory about DNA , that it is unique to an individual. But until out go and test 1000s of individuals. You can't have confidence in it. Same with finger prints. So you need both parts of my theory to show that.
This the same with the start to life.The only problem is you can't check it out. (at least so far)

But, you can check it out. You can check it against the geological evidence I have been talking about since the beginning of this thread. There is evidence!!

Also, I yellowed a very important part of your post. "Not yet" does not imply "not ever." But, your argument is deriving a "not ever" from a "not yet."

dunsapy writes:

You have to assume how the earth and the chemicals etc. got there. Could have it been by a creator, or did it just happen? Where did all of this material come from in the universe?

Would it make a difference if a Designer/Creator put it there? If life requires a meteorite collision, what difference does it make whether God threw the meteorite or it just flew by naturally? In either event, the meteorite is the important factor, because, if life can start from God throwing a meteorite, it can also start from a natural meteorite collision.

dunsapy writes:

So what was before the 'big bang'?

I'm not a Big Bang cosmology expert, nor is this a Big Bang thread. But, you've got to understand the basic principle of it: the Big Bang is not the production of matter and energy: it's the expansion of space and time. Time began at the Big Bang, so asking about "before" the Big Bang is the same as asking about north of the North Pole (that's a favorite example used by physicists and Big Bang groupies).

dunsapy writes:

And that is, life comes from life, and the design in life.

Yes, life comes from life. But, we know that this can't be universal, because of the evidence of the Big Bang. Since there was a point in the history of the universe when life didn't exist, there also has to have been a point in the history of the universe when life came from non-life, or else life wouldn't be here now.

We don't know how it happened, or who was involved. But, the point is that it had to have happened somehow. And, however it happened, there was a method behind the happening. Science has the ability to find the method without even making a single reference to the designer of the method (if there is one).

But, if we can show that life was created without magic, then we have proven that life came about naturalistically (that is, by using natural processes). What's the difference between naturalistically and naturally?


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by dunsapy, posted 10-06-2008 1:07 PM dunsapy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by dunsapy, posted 10-06-2008 3:07 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 76 of 81 (485250)
10-06-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dunsapy
10-06-2008 3:07 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

This is the point that the Creator steps in and creates from the materials of the earth. The bible says the from the dust of the ground. But even this means life comes from life, or from intelligence.

Okay.

But, this still is not "life" coming from "life." Keep in mind that the Law of Biogenesis has a specific definition for "life." That definition is purely chemical: life is defined in terms of its physical properties (carbon, cells, etc.). None of those physical properties could exist in the early stages of the universe because atoms didn’t exist to make carbon, let alone cells. If God existed in the early stages of the universe, He does not fit the chemical/physical definition of “life” given by the Law of Biogenesis, so His creating life is still “life” from “non-life,” and still violates the LoB.

Thus, you must accept either the Law of Biogenesis or divine creationism, not both together, because the two are contradictory to one another.

-----

dunsapy writes:

And the experiment from scientist doesn't tell you how the rock was thrown , by a natural forces or by someone.

I asked you what difference it would make if it was thrown or if it sailed in naturally. Would you argue that non-intelligence couldn’t heave rocks? Or that non-intelligence couldn’t result in a volcano eruption or a lightning strike?

If intelligence isn’t needed to heave rocks, or to do anything that the experiment does, then why do you think the experiment shows that intelligence might be needed?

-----

dunsapy writes:

So the experiments, results may look natural, but in reality, be caused by intelligence.

But they don’t prove that the results were caused by intelligence.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dunsapy, posted 10-06-2008 3:07 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 78 of 81 (485327)
10-07-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dunsapy
10-06-2008 5:39 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

But you have to remember that the 'law' of biogenesis, is a man made law, it can be undone, or changed

:D

My writing was meant to be a criticism of the "law" of biogenesis, because you seemed to have been invoking it. Since its original coining, LoB has been restricted to reference only to modern organisms, and not limiting on all life that ever was, simply because of the realization that life had to have started somewhere, somehow, and because of the realization that experiments done did not have the power to comment on all life everywhere and everywhen.

I hope I didn't sound condescending to you.

-----

dunsapy writes:

I could take 2 rocks and smash them together, I could take one rock and smash it into the ground and at the same time twist it, I could just grind one rock into another, i could pound it a number of times. All of these things take intelligence,, because in the natural world it may not happen that way. So intelligence , changed natural movement of a rock.
Any of these things may have been needed.

I understand what you're saying. But, I'm not convinced that nature couldn't have done all those things.

But, even if you’re right, natural processes tend to rely less on methodology and more on results. So, the idea that a specific action is required is really not supported by any evidence that I have seen. Twisting motion and shivering motion have the same results of shaking the ground or puddle. Increased solar radiation and increased cloud cover both increase the greenhouse effect, and thus, the ambient heat in the atmosphere. I argue that the results are more important than the means in these instances.

So, I don’t see why a rock would have to do something very specific to get its job done. The difference between the effect of a spinning meteorite and a non-spinning meteorite colliding with a pool of water could not possible be the difference between life and not life, because both essentially drain the pond, anyway.

Only further testing in a laboratory setting can reveal to us how specific the requirements need to be. If multiple different ways of laboratory synthesis are successful in producing life, then it should be abundantly clear that the formation of life does not require specific, choreographed regimes of events to proceed.

-----

P.S. I actually like debating with you: I hope my strong approach isn't giving you the wrong impression.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dunsapy, posted 10-06-2008 5:39 PM dunsapy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dunsapy, posted 10-07-2008 2:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1974 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 80 of 81 (485420)
10-08-2008 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dunsapy
10-07-2008 2:17 PM


Hi, Dunsapy.

dunsapy writes:

I wonder what your comment on this will be?

Maybe I should refrain for the sake of maintaining a good relationship. :D

-----

dunsapy writes:

But further than this, the bible is accurate when it comes to true science. Even when the thinking of the day, was not. This holds true today also.
I think science may fight it all the way, but they will have to come to terms with this in the end. Nothing else is possible. The evidence points to that conclusion.( including scientific evidence )

I don't particularly find the Bible to be credible at all, particularly the Genesis account (although it may have symbolic significance somehow). In the end, you have to bend the words and squeeze some obscure meaning from them in order to get them to match up with reality. And, when they do match up, the writing is so vague that it really doesn't explain anything, anyway.

Plus, there are plenty of errors (my favorite: God seems to think insects have four legs (Lev. 11:20-23)). To me, this indicates that people wrote the Bible. Since I believe in God, I still think God is somehow connected to the Scriptures, but there is clearly a lot of the Bible that was literary license or non-exact quoting.

I don't agree with the 100% true prophecies, either. Essentially, the prophecies listed were like fortune cookie or horoscope promises: they were left vague enough that anything could be considered fulfillment of them.

But, a lot of my feelings toward it are because my father and his brothers are big conspiracy theorists, and they're always watching politics and the news for the conspiracies. They're always expecting it to be there, so they always see it there, and, when they read essays on obscure conspiracy websites, they allow the essay's resonance with their personal opinions convince them that it is all true.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dunsapy, posted 10-07-2008 2:17 PM dunsapy has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022