Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
I'll take a moment to give an example regarding my earlier answer.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.
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.
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.
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.
For some, simply too much risk in certain questions.
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.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.
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.
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.
How does the watchmaker argument identify design? Is it based on interdependency? If so then yes, otherwise no.Would your view of design be akin to the watchmaker argument?
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.
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
Perhaps it would be easier if you just said "I don't know".
Perhaps it would be easier if you just said "I don't know".
Why? so I won't break TFY's record?
Why? so I won't break TFY's record?
Let me get this straight.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?