Dunsapy Theory (DUNSAPY AND BLUEJAY ONLY)

I want you to realize that my theory ( Dunsapy Theory), does not say anything about how life got started.
I'm only saying, that with scientists doing experiments, they can only show creation or intelligence. Because they are part of the experiment, or process.Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

As I am waiting for a reply, from you, I was just rambling, around here thinking, and have come up with a couple more ideas, on, why I think that it is impossible for life to be non created.
But that, is after we discuss my theory, and come to some conclusion.

Hi, Dunsapy. 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. Is it your argument that an artificial experiment could not simulate natural conditions?Or, is it your argument that we can't really know what the conditions were like?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi bluejayI want to get into the actual science of how life started with you , I think that would be very interesting.
But first I would like to test just my theory.I hope that is OK.Dunsapy Theory I am saying that if science knew the conditions on the earth and could show that, by forming life in an experiment. ( So I am giving science the benefit of doubt, that they did discover how to do it) and showed that they were right , by producing life. 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? In other words, without sciences interference, like an experiment. And the conditions would have to be the same as in the beginning. Before life on this planet.(The earth is now filled with all sorts of life,and chemicals , lighting maybe different etc. So the earth is not as it was in the beginning) Even if science thinks for what ever reason they have the same conditions as it was before life on earth, they would not know for sure.Do you agree with that?Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

I think that it is very unlikely that they could simulate the natural condition. and there is no way to prove weather it is correct, or not. Just because you could produce life from the artificial conditions, doesn't mean thats what happened. There are toxic conditions or materials as well. Would you as a scientist, throw poison , in with the mix.? I think this is doubtful as well.By doing the experiments you are playing God.Though I do think science, could come up with a simulation that would be conducive to lifeEdited by dunsapy, : No reason given.Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.Edited by dunsapy, : No reason given.

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?

Hi, Dunsapy. 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.The only question remaining is whether or not the {AbE: supposed early-earth conditions used in the study} are accurate. Miller-Urey's conditions have been found to have been inaccurate in several ways, but the same basic study concept has been repeated with corrected conditions, with pretty much the same results. I have two complaints with this statement:

1. Science doesn’t claim to be able to produce absolute truth. It never did. But, just because we don’t know everything, doesn’t mean we don’t know anything. The inability to produce absolute, 100% truth does not cast everything we do in vast shadows of uncertainty. It doesn’t even constitute grounds for “reasonable doubt.” If you were to use this argument in a courtroom, your client would be going to jail for sure.
   ​
2. You are claiming that the only good evidence is direct evidence. If you live in the USA, you’ve probably seen a whole slough of courtroom dramas. 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.
   ​
   Do you really believe this?

Edited by Bluejay, : Alteration.Edited by Bluejay, : Emphases

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Dunsapy. If the early-Earth conditions included a "poison," and my intent was to determine how early-Earth conditions effected the development of life, then, yes, I would throw poison in with the mix. Otherwise, my results would not be able to answer my question.It's curious that you should mention this, because many M-U-type experiments have included "poisons" in their concoctions: cyanide and UV radiation are two that I can think of off the top of my head. In both cases, the results were still the production of prebiotic chemicals. Not me, personally. I'm not an atheist, so I prefer to hedge my bets and let someone else handle it. And, why is this such an issue? to a theistic scientist like myself, the whole point of science is to figure out how God did it all. In order to do that, I'd have to "get into His shoes," so to speak, wouldn't I?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Dunsapy. The idea is quite elegant, actually.Before banded iron formations (BIFs) are seen in the geological column, there isn't much evidence for the presence of free oxygen. But, when BIFs are seen, this is evidence of free oxygen, which produced oxygen, that immediately bonded to iron and precipitated out of the ocean, forming a layer on the seafloor. This is evidence that photosynthesis was occurring, because that's the way free oxygen is formed (I don't know the specifics here, so I don't know if there are alternatives to photosynthesis for oxygen-production, or how they ruled out the alternatives if there are any).Once the oxygen extracted all the iron from the waters, it began to accumulate in the water and in the atmosphere. That's when conditions were right for other organisms to begin using oxygen to fuel their metabolism. Before then, it was likely that other chemicals were used instead of oxygen.Keep in mind that oxygen is not actually friendly to organic chemistry: it causes all sorts of problems because of its high reactivity with many other chemicals. So, oxygen could (and most likely, would) be regarded as a "toxin" or "poison" if we hadn't figured out how to breathe it.On the other hand, the machinery to utilize oxygen is common to all eukaryotes (plants and animals), but photosynthesis is only found in plants. This suggests either (a) that plants were initially animal-like, with mitochondria and oxygen-metabolism, then later obtained chloroplasts and photosynthesis, or (b) that animals were initially photosynthetic, like plants, and later lost their chloroplasts. So, when asking about eukaryotes, then it's quite likely (though not exclusively) that aerobic respiration predated photosynthesis.But, in relation to the earliest lifeforms, photosynthesis probably predated aerobic respiration.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

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. 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?

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?

Hi, Dunsapy. I have already answered these questions, Dunsapy. You can learn a lot about an environment from the rocks that are formed in that environment, and we still have all the rocks. It's not too hard to understand that. Yes, you could. But, Miller and Urey---nor any of their successors---did not do thisas I already explained to you. They used conditions from the time period in question, and those conditions produced prebiotic chemicals. They did not "make up" conditions that were conducive to the formation of life. When they set up the experiment, they did not know whether it would produce anything at all. The point of their experiment was to see if it could produce anything at all. You could say a lot of things. I could say that the entire universe popped out of a giant toaster at 2:13 PM on October 17th, 17899765 BC, but that wouldn't mean it would be science's job to disprove it.If you're going to make a new claim, you have to support it. Otherwise, scientists would be wasting all their time rebutting everybody's stupid ideas about toasters and fairies and spaghetti monsters, and they would never get any real work done.Give me one good reason why science should consider your new hypothesis if all you're going to do to support it is say that science isn't 100% absolute. The obvious rebuttal to this is, "Even if I find scientific evidence for your hypothesis, it still wouldn't be 100% proof, and your own argument says that this isn't good enough, so why should you care if you have scientific evidence?" Does it have to?Does imperfection automatically invalidate the results?Edited by Bluejay, : Punctuation

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Dunsapy. I think this is the fourth time you have said this.In what way do you think running an experiment would "compromise" the results? I have no idea how long it took prebiotic chemicals to finally coallesce into true life-forms. I don't know whether the time issue is particularly important at this stage in the research. But, there are mountains of evidence in the form of fossils and geological layers that support a long, continuous history of evolution of that life once it did form. You're free to disbelieve this if you wish, but, if you want your ideas to be considered scientific, you have to support them with real evidence and experiments.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

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

Hi, DunsapyYour argument still consists of the same two points that I have been addressing since the beginning of this thread:

1. Only direct evidence is good enough to prove something.
2. Anything short of perfection is worthless.

You have failed to address my courtroom analogies and failed to acknowledge that your argument has lots of consequences that you are unwilling to accept (e.g., by your argument, you shouldn’t believe in God, either), instead opting to just hammer out the exact same stuff you have written in every post so far.But, you at least have one-up on most creationists: you have suggested an alternative proposal. Your proposal is that we must watch life as it forms on some pristine world in order to know how life arises.Unfortunately, your proposal doesn’t ameliorate the problems you are complaining about:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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).

Once again, all you have done is repeat your original argument. And, by the way, there is already a name for this “theory”: it’s called, ”God of the Gaps.”In order to simulate millions of years, all you have to do is break the process into its component steps, and show, independently, how each step can happen spontaneously in prebiotic conditions, and then show that the conditions you used were present at the correct time.Formation of amino acids: check
Formation of nucleic acids: check
Spontaneous homochirality in amino acids: check
Formation of lipid bilayers: check
Self-replication of nucleic acids: checkWe 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.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.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.