Criteria for determining design

[crjmurray]

Really? I give you several examples of why I think life is the criteria of design...homochirality and other requirements for that life and you claim I am evading? Then you claim that Chet hasn't played games (I agree) because he said "interdependent parts". I wonder what motivations you do have. However, you have fun directing your thread in the way you feel most comfortable in refuting. Thanks but no thanks.

We wouldn't need teachers if children could educate themselves. We wouldn't need firemen if fires didn't start. We wouldn't need policemen if people would stay within the confines of the law. I would not need to "direct" this thread if people would answer the question in the OP.

 

[ChetSinger]

No Chet you did not try to play games. However you did only provide a partial answer to the OP. Your answer was "interdependent parts". You even admitted that it was only part of your criteria for determining design. Like I said, I'm not going to drag an answer out of someone. If someone wants to respond I would appreciate a full comprehensive answer to the OP.

I'll take a moment to give an example regarding my earlier answer.

I think that one example of interdependent parts are a cell's DNA and the proteins it uses during its life cycle. The DNA contains the protein specifications, so the proteins depend on the DNA. The proteins detect and repair damage to the DNA (among many other functions), so the DNA depends on proteins. Each depends on the other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We wouldn't need teachers if children could educate themselves. We wouldn't need firemen if fires didn't start. We wouldn't need policemen if people would stay within the confines of the law. I would not need to "direct" this thread if people would answer the question in the OP.

Do you see me rolling my eyes. NO? Darn. Have fun.

 

[bhsmte]

We wouldn't need teachers if children could educate themselves. We wouldn't need firemen if fires didn't start. We wouldn't need policemen if people would stay within the confines of the law. I would not need to "direct" this thread if people would answer the question in the OP.

For some, simply too much risk in certain questions.

 

[crjmurray]

I'll take a moment to give an example regarding my earlier answer.

I think that one example of interdependent parts are a cell's DNA and the proteins it uses during its life cycle. The DNA contains the protein specifications, so the proteins depend on the DNA. The proteins detect and repair damage to the DNA (among many other functions), so the DNA depends on proteins. Each depends on the other.

Design on the DNA level is an interesting part of ID. It is a little different than the examples usually given. For example you see people talk about nerves or thumbs or circulatory systems etc as evidence for design even though we can see those things come about through natural processes. I'll give an example of what I mean. I have mentioned before that my parents raise brahman. I have seen a bull and a heifer copulate. I have seen and aided in the birth of several calves. I have watched calves grow up into full grown bulls and cows. There is no design in the process I just mentioned (that I can see). BUT design at the DNA level changes that. So are you saying that the complexity of DNA indicates design?

Edit: obviously the thumb thing does not apply to cows.....

 

[crjmurray]

For some, simply too much risk in certain questions.

Clear out your messaging box you freakin clutterbug.

 

[bhsmte]

Clear out your messaging box you freakin clutterbug.

Just did.

What can I say, I am a popular guy.

 

[ChetSinger]

Design on the DNA level is an interesting part of ID. It is a little different than the examples usually given. For example you see people talk about nerves or thumbs or circulatory systems etc as evidence for design even though we can see those things come about through natural processes. I'll give an example of what I mean. I have mentioned before that my parents raise brahman. I have seen a bull and a heifer copulate. I have seen and aided in the birth of several calves. I have watched calves grow up into full grown bulls and cows. There is no design in the process I just mentioned (that I can see). BUT design at the DNA level changes that. So are you saying that the complexity of DNA indicates design?

In these kinds of conversations I think that "complexity" is a difficult-to-agree-upon concept. But I think interdependency is a more objective idea and easier to agree on. I think interdependency is a reflection of design. Televisions, for example, have interdependent parts working together. Snowflakes may be individually complex, but don't have interdependent parts working together.

 

[crjmurray]

In these kinds of conversations I think that "complexity" is a difficult-to-agree-upon concept. But I think interdependency is a more objective idea and easier to agree on. I think interdependency is a reflection of design. Televisions, for example, have interdependent parts working together. Snowflakes may be individually complex, but don't have interdependent parts working together.

Would your view of design be akin to the watchmaker argument?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You clearly do need assistance since this has gone on for two pages and I've yet to see a comprehensive answer. It should have taken one post to answer the OP. Just one. One post providing the criteria for identifying design. Then we can discuss that criteria. Instead we have to play this game, drag it out, and we still won't get a complete answer. If I started a thread on how to identify common descent I would have seven pages of answers by now and the discussion wouldn't have even started yet. Instead, I'm still waiting for an answer.

When I first joined this forum, "kinds" was popular. So I started a thread asking creationists for the definition of a "kind", to find out what it meant.

They came and posted in the thread, and not a single one would give a definition. But they sure liked to use the word.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

In these kinds of conversations I think that "complexity" is a difficult-to-agree-upon concept. But I think interdependency is a more objective idea and easier to agree on. I think interdependency is a reflection of design. Televisions, for example, have interdependent parts working together. Snowflakes may be individually complex, but don't have interdependent parts working together.

for intellectual honesty. Kudos.

 

[ChetSinger]

Would your view of design be akin to the watchmaker argument?

How does the watchmaker argument identify design? Is it based on interdependency? If so then yes, otherwise no.

 

[bhsmte]

When I first joined this forum, "kinds" was popular. So I started a thread asking creationists for the definition of a "kind", to find out what it meant.

They came and posted in the thread, and not a single one would give a definition. But they sure liked to use the word.

Workable definitions, are like Kryptonite to some. It's like peeling back the layers of the onion and the tears start to flow.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I first joined this forum, "kinds" was popular. So I started a thread asking creationists for the definition of a "kind", to find out what it meant.

They came and posted in the thread, and not a single one would give a definition. But they sure liked to use the word.

Kind = Genus

 

[sandybay]

Kind = Genus

Perhaps it would be easier if you just said "I don't know".

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps it would be easier if you just said "I don't know".

Why? so I won't break TFY's record?

 

[sandybay]

Perhaps it would be easier if you just said "I don't know".

Why? so I won't break TFY's record?

No, because you don't know, nor does anyone else for that matter.
If anyone did I am sure we would all have heard about it a long time ago.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Why? so I won't break TFY's record?

And one I'm proud of.

Seriously though, don't you think it is better to say "I don't know", than to pretend to know something?

 

[AV1611VET]

And one I'm proud of.

Seriously though, don't you think it is better to say "I don't know", than to pretend to know something?

Let me get this straight.

You go around asking for the definitin of "kind."

Then when someone gives you one, you say he should have said, "I don't know"?

Is this so you can boast you've never been given one?

Well, for what it's worth, I say: kind = genus.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Let me get this straight.

Let me get this straight?