Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)

Hi, Dunsapy. 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.----- 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?----- But they don’t prove that the results were caused by intelligence.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Okay. Yes I understand this. That is why science is not there yet. But it is getting closer.
We are physical but God is not. But through , his energy he can make physical things.
But you have to remember that the 'law' of biogenesis, is a man made law, it can be undone, or changed. 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.

Hi, Dunsapy. 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.----- 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.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Actually you are more polite and serious about your answers than most I have come across.
If you have to explain things in a simple way with me. That's OK. I don't pretend to be up on all scientific, information, or understanding.
My theory really does not require that I be. It's just about the process anyway.
I really have no idea how life was created. ( other than from the dust of the ground)
I find that the bible with it's 39 writers, over a 1500 year period of time, it 100 % on prophesies , and the theme, constant throughout . There are no contradictions in the bible. It would have been impossible for man to do. So inspiration had to be true.
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 wonder what your comment on this will be?

Hi, Dunsapy. Maybe I should refrain for the sake of maintaining a good relationship. ----- 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.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

This is not saying all bugs have 4 legs. It is just saying the flying creatures that have 4 legs. Also some of these laws were for the people at that time, to keep themselves clean, from the dead bodies etc. This was in a time when people did not know anything about germs etc. These things were not discovered by man, until a long time later.I understand your thinking on religion , but when ever, has mainstream religions been correct. If you look at bible history , it has always been 1 or 2 prophets that were sent to get people back on the right track. At the flood 8 people, out of an estimated 1 million at that time. The bible even says few will find the truth.
The bible talks about governments, down to our day, including, the US, the League of Nations, and the United Nations. It talks about people in our time as ruining the earth, which is what we see.
I don't know if you want to continue with this, because it is off topic. But if you want to ask any questions on the bible etc, I will try to answer them. But I do stand by what I say there are no contradictions in the bible and the prophecy are 100% . ( there are a just few left to fulfill)
Christian religions have misrepresented God. So I can see, why people are turned off of religion.I don't know if you want to go down this path