The consequences of an intelligent designer

When someone says "implied" or (similar words), that usually means they are trying to not mis-represent you.

I'm sorry if I was unintentionally mis-representing you.Do you hate me now? You don't hold grudges because we had one debate do you?

How can I hold a grudge against someone that doesn't exist?....Ok, bad joke. But no, I don't hold grudges. All I'm going to do is change your shoutout statement on your pin on the EvC map.

Well, I think I can answer your question.* Adopts ID pose, dons Magical Hat of Analogy, says the mystic ocult words "Petitio principii!" *Designed objects fall into two categories. First, there are those which are useful. Now the Earth and its ecosystem are not evidently in use. Moreover, so far as we are aware, no design theorist has ever even postulated a use that the Designer (or the Owner) might have for a life-bearing planet, still less shown positive evidence that it has one.What is it supposed to be for, after all? Is it a manufactory? A conveyance? A utensil? It seems ill-adapted for any purpose.Experience teaches us that when an object is well designed, but has no practical purpose, it is intended to be ornamental. The Earth, we know, is well-designed. From the fact that the Earth has no conceivable use, it follows that the Earth must fall into the second category. The Earth must be an ornament, a decoration, a work of art.Hence we have a strong and testable prediction: that the Earth should, in fact, be ornamental. Now the Earth, I think everyone will conceed, is quite stunningly beautiful; and it is noteworthy that the principal exceptions are those parts which have been modified by humanity for practical purposes. Similarly, all our experience teaches us that the most highly ornamental objects are never intended for practical purposes.To summarize our findings: the Earth has no apparent use; it is evidently highly ornamental; hence it is an ornament.This deduction is in line with other sciences which deal with the study of design, such as archaeology. If an archaeologist were to unearth an item which was evidently designed, which showed no signs of use, had no conceivable practical use, and was unarguably very beautiful, then that archaeologist would classify it as ornamental in function.---I wonder how many other people in the Wonderful Scientific World Of ID have come to this conclusion? I wonder how much ink has been expended over this point?I wonder ... and I can guess.

Moving back to the consequences of an intelligent designer, why should we assume any morality or ethics are involved? Look at the way we raise chickens and other "factory" foods.Perhaps life on earth is designed as a breeding ground to biological warfare.That would certainly explain more than assuming charity or altruism.What's in it for the designer? Or do we have competing designers, trying hostile take-overs of other designs?One major consequence of assuming a designer is that there is no reason to stop at one - it is more logical to assume a race or multiple races of designers, as we are using our design ability as an analogy and there is no evidence of a single entity of any form of living or spiritual existence.If we use humans as an example then we must assume a pantheon of designers with different abilities, different motives and different ethics.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Another reason for disuse is that it has been discarded because it didn't fit the specs. and the earth has been stumbling along with it's malformed systems in the garbage bag universe ...

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

you forgot to mention the other thing that Gasby said--God is also immortal.how can an immortal being know what it is like to try and survive?
because in order to try and survive, the risk of death must be real.
so in other words, either your God doesn't know everything, or he is mortal. which is it?(and unless it's a typo, or I missed something somewhere along the line in this thread, isn't god's knowledge omniscient?)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Allways the God thing. If that is not bad enough people assume to know what motives "God" might have.
If there is an inelligent designer.....we and all we experience are one set of consequences.
Since when should an intelligent designer or designers have but one purpose or motive? This being the case there may be an endless symphony of intended outcomes. My own view is that I am here to learn. How much I absorb depends upon my density....lol

Interesting.
However I think there is a flaw in your argument. You say - But if we are part of the design then the design itself is inherently setup to become increasingly less beautiful and therefore less ornamental over time (i.e. as we continue to screw up the planet for our own practical ends)The obvious conclusion is that the ornamental design you describe would be infinitely better designed if humans had been completely left out of the equation............Are we the equivelent of termites eating away at the beautifully painted canvas?
Or, to continue in the spirit of your argument, are we in fact the ornament? The equivelent of exotic fish in huge fish tank.

Intelligent design proponents believe that we can use our knowledge of how human beings carry out intelligent design, to infer the existence of similarly intelligent design in nature.I did some research into contemporary intelligent design theory in order to generate some hypotheses: I'm assuming that my source is a good example of how empirical observations of intelligent design work in practice. If the natural world is also intelligently designed, we can use our newfound knowledge to make specific predictions such as:a) all species should be affordable;b) all species should have been created by skilled manufacturers working closely with the designers;c) all species should conveniently found in a single location, along with the kitchens and bookcasesc) all species should be color-coordinatedd) all species arrive flat-packed and are assembled with a complimentary allen keyMickEdited by mick, : No reason given.Edited by mick, : added subbie's quote at the beginningEdited by mick, : I've got to start using that preview button...Edited by mick, : couldn't resist addng the final hypothesis

e) all species should have at least one part missing

IKEAIk Kan 'Et Assembleren

Idioten Kopen Echt Alles...

I guess each species will also come with irreducably complex assembly instructions