Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

HUH?Sorry but that is nonsense. The test I presented says nothing about intent. Instead it points to a characteristic of things we know are designed, in this case automobiles, and then looks to see if that characteristic of design is present in living things.That characteristic is NOT found in living things. Ah, I understand. You worship a god that does not try his best, that is satisfied with mediocrity. Gottcha. I Understand. Again, it is clear that you worship some god that does not try his best. Gottcha. I Understand.But no, those things are totally irrelevant to the test I presented. But it does bring up yet another test.In designed things, we tend to fire designers that do not try to do their best and hold them liable for their failure. That is related to the second place where knowing who the designer is might be important, and that is product liability suits.In designed things we hold the designer liable when it can be shown that the designer did NOT follow best practices. The Designer you mention would be such an example, a designer that did not try to do his best.Gottcha. I Understand.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then I suppose that you can point out where intent is relevant in the test I proposed. In case you have forgotten, here it is again.

quote:

---

There is also the fact that the designer is too stupid to adopt good ideas.

​

Consider cars. There are many species or kinds of cars, Packard, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, Humber, DKW, AutoUnion, Alfa Romeo, Citroen just as there are many kinds of mammals, lions, tigers, bears, man, orangutan, elephant, horse and of course, ohmys.

​

The difference between something designed, like cars, and those things that are not designed like mammals though can be seen in the difference in how good ideas do not propagate through out the living species or kinds.

​

In the early 1920s power windshield wipers appeared on the first car. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1923 the first standard equipment radio appeared. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

In 1939, Buick introduced turn signals. Within only a few years they were found on every car.

​

The list is almost endless.

​

* electric wipers instead of vacuum.
* internal combustion engines.
* radial tires.
* heaters.
* air conditioning.
* roll down windows.
* headlights.
* mirrors.
* steering wheels.
* tops.
* spare tires.
* space saver spares.
* starters.
* the change from generator to alternator.

​

I could go on but that list should give you an idea.

​

In each instance this was a new feature that first appeared in only one make, sometimes only one model of a car. The designer though took good ideas from one model and applied those same ideas to EVERY model.

​

We do not see that when we look at examples of living critters. The humans brain is not then repeated in all mammals, the eagles eyes are not then repeated in all animals, good features, advances do not get incorporated across all the makes and models, species or kind, of mammals.

​

Looking at living critters what we find is NOT Intelligent Design.

---

HUH?Did you not say "You and your evolutionist friends are convinced that what we see is the very best God was capable of producing." and also "So, for your test to be a valid test God had to be trying to create every aspect of his creation to be the best and most perfect in every way that he was capable of producing.
Using the bible show me your evidence that this was God's intention.ICdesign" in Message 143?You are the one that brought up the competency of the designer, not I.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

A claim has been made that we cannot know the intent of the designer. I have said that intent is really irrelevant to anyone except the designer and so of no importance. In support of that position I point to ... Silly PuttyBack before the US entered WWII, it became obvious that one of the critical items for war making, rubber, was going to be an issue. The Japanese had invaded and taken over nearly every source for rubber then known and without rubber for tires, gaskets, water proof clothing, the war would be lost for sure.The US turned to science to find a substitute for the natural product and during 1943, James Wright working for General Electric mixed silicon oil and boric acid which polymerized in the test tube.According to the story, when he found it stretched and could be molded he was so excited he threw some on the floor where it bounced.Was this the breakthrough needed?Samples were sent to labs all over the country, Canada, Great Britain and Australia to see if this could be a practical replacement for rubber. Every single result though showed that it was worthless as a rubber replacement.And so for years it just was a scientific curiosity, until a toy store owner happened to see it at a convention.And as they say, the rest is history. Since then Silly Putty has been a world wide success and it's doubtful that many kids born ofter the 50s have not played with it, found new uses (copying the ink off the cartoons on Sunday) but not one use has been related to the intent of the designer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I mentioned that, as a historical footnote. We are looking for other reasons though Mikie. I believed you might even think any of those are related to the topic, but they aren't.The question is about whether or not the designer matters.Try to stay on topic Mikie. Start a new thread if you want me to bother addressing that stuff.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

To see if anyone can show some value to a designer other than the two I have mentioned, as an historical footnote or in cases of product liability. Other than in the two areas I have mentioned, so far no one has shown that the designer does matter. LOL.Again, I have covered that. Once the painting is there does it matter who painted it or even if it was painted other than in the two areas I have mentioned. Very, very often the thing created is greater than the creator.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Huh?That might be important to the artist, but sorry, it is irrelevant to the viewer.I can enjoy a painting regardless of whether it was painted by a human or a chimp. There is little anyone needs to learn about the designer from a design.Does it matter who was the first person to design a radio?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Again, why does it matter?Does it matter whether a painting was created by a painter or is the result of wind blowing berries across a paper?How does the designer matter other than in the two areas I mentioned, as an historical footnote or in cases of product liability?Why is the radio not a good example? Once we understand what was done, does it matter if it was designed originally or just a natural consequence? Too funny. Come on Mikie. That is totally irrelevant. We are not debating the relative value of objects. Try to stay on topic.Edited by jar, : gotta stop them extra 'e's

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Thanks for your view. What does any of it have to do with the topic? In case you forgot what the topic is here is a hint.Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I'm sorry Mikie but you are just conflating ideas and subjects. You describe something that helps you, maybe like a mechanic changing tires or a plumber cleaning the sink trap.But that is not related to the question of a designer.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Look at your examples mike the wiz, what do they have to do with whether or not there was a designer?The earth goes on.A something maintaining crap is irrelevant to whether or not the mechanic was the designer.You having the cold chills in some experience is irrelevant to whether or not there was a designer.Things exist, whether they were designed or not. And when we look at those things we know are designed and the characteristics of known designed objects, and then look at the rest of the universe, we do not find the characteristics that are typical of designed things.How is a plumber any different than a life changing experience and even so, what does that have to do with whether or not there is a designer? The plumber is still capable of unclogging the toilet (water closet or loo or WC) even if he is not the designer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Kinda left out the parts of that post that answered your questions mike the wiz.

quote:

---

Look at your examples mike the wiz, what do they have to do with whether or not there was a designer?

​

The earth goes on.

​

A something maintaining crap is irrelevant to whether or not the mechanic was the designer.

​

You having the cold chills in some experience is irrelevant to whether or not there was a designer.

​

Things exist, whether they were designed or not. And when we look at those things we know are designed and the characteristics of known designed objects, and then look at the rest of the universe, we do not find the characteristics that are typical of designed things.

​

How is a plumber any different than a life changing experience and even so, what does that have to do with whether or not there is a designer? The plumber is still capable of unclogging the toilet (water closet or loo or WC) even if he is not the designer.

---

I asked a question. When someone provides what they think might be an answer, then we can examine that response. You gave some examples and I responded to them. Can someone maintain something even if that person was not the designer of the object? Huh?Design in organisms is a truism?Even if that were true, does the designer matter?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Too funny.I asked a question.I listened to the answers and then examined the answers.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Whatever.But how is that relevant?How is intent even relevant?Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then it should be easy for you to link to a message where those reasons are presented. Too funny. What does that even have to do with the question which is "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?"I have pointed out two areas where it does matter, as a historical footnote (Joe designed this widget) and in the case of product liability.Other things have been suggested but when examined, they are totally irrelevant and unrelated to the question which is "Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?'For example, some future judgment might well be possible regardless of whether the judge was the designer or not.It has been suggested the the universe is somehow maintained by the designer. Well again, the mechanic can repair a car even if he did not design it, a plumber can clean out the loo even if he did not design it.If you have some other possible way the designer matters, please present it.ABE:You also failed to address the issue of intent.Did you say "The point I was trying to make before is that it was not God's intent to give every creature the same feature nor was it his intent to make every feature as strong and powerful as he was capable of making them"?I addressed the issue of intent in Message 147 but perhaps you missed it.How is the intent of some designer relevant?Edited by jar, : cover the part ICDESIGN left out when he was replying.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

How are those questions anything more than an historical footnote?For example consider the (possibly fictional) story about Ford sending out specs for the packaging of sub-contracted parts so that the packaging itself could be used as part of the car.Even if true, it is only of mildly historical interest and has no relevance to how a car works or building a better car.Consider yet again, Harvey Earl who introduced the idea of full scale clay models of cars and the whole idea of building "concept cars".Again, other than as an historical footnote how is it relevant.Finally, even if those were both true, does it matter whether it was Henry Ford and Harvey Earl or instead, J. W. Packard and Giorgetto Giugiaro?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!