Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

You have not defined "matters".If you punch me in the face it, "matters" because it hurts and will cause me damage. If God does not exist, then the universe will be unable to keep itself together, therefore it "matters". I read the thread, and lots of people, most of them atheists, gave some compelling answers.Jar, I'm not going to badger you into relenting. I'm not arrogant enough to demand that you change your mind, I simply think very differently than you.
We shall leave it here. All the best. Kind regards, mike.

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!

I can't stand it anymore jar. I just can't can't let you get away with using these idiotic lines of
"reasoning" as if they disprove a designer. As far as your arrogance and blasphemy is concerned, I am going to symbolically put my fingers in my ears and go "blubbuldy blubbuldy blubbildy, and find contentment in knowing you will be dealt with on your future appointment with the Judge Jesus Christ of whom you claim to be following. First of all, all mammals have common features that are necessary to survive here on planet earth.
This fact is one of the driving forces behind the ToE. Wipers: Not all wipers are electric. In trucks for instance, some are air and some are electric. And so what anyway. If a car maker chose to use a vacuum wiper, does that in any way prove their isn't a car designer? Its a good idea to have intermediate wipers. Some cars don't have that feature, some have two settings and some have six settings.Variation in design doesn't prove anything other than design ideas are flexible.Internal combustion engines: You have internal combustion and you have rotary engines. You have diesel engines. You have 600hp engines and you have little 50hp engines.Variation in design doesn't prove anything other than design ideas are flexible.
I could go right down your list and refute your premise with every feature.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. Could he have given man the same vision as he did the eagle? Of course.
Could every car manufacturer have put electric windows in every model they produce? Of course.
Did they? No. Were the cars with manual windows designed by a designer?Digging deep to regain a respectful tone,
IC

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!

You have been given many reasons why the answer is yes. Seems way past due to shut down this redundant thread.Even if there was a Designer, does it matter? When your appointment time arrives let me know how that answer works out for you.

For instance, hair follicles and pelvises....even in species that don't have hair or legs, like whales. Um, how does that show "common design", again?

Did I say they had all features in common? No I didn't.

No, you misunderstand. It's actually a matter of fact that fetal whales develop hair and pelvises. The hair they lose, the pelvises they keep, even though those bones have no purpose in a whale since it has no legs.It's a mystery why a "common designer" would insist on that level of useless commonality; the existence of fetal whale hair and pelvises is an utter mystery to the creationist. But the evolutionary notion that whales, being mammals, inherited a plan of fetal development that includes hair and pelvises explains quite simply and robustly these common features among cetaceans and land mammals.The whale's pelvis is just one more proof of evolution. You, on the other hand, are apparently trying as hard as you can to pretend that it doesn't even exist.

Those bones are necessary because muscles attach to those bones. And without those bones and those muscles the whales cannot reproduce. It has nothing to do with walking on land. It has to do with getting more baby whales.News flash for ya Crash. This isn't a thread about whales.Got to run...Happy New Year to all,IC

No, they're not. Otherwise fish would have pelvises too. The whale's pelvis (unlike yours) isn't attached to its spine, rather it "floats", so it can't serve as a leverage or attachment point for any significant musculature. Any muscle that tried to adduct against the whale's pelvis would simply yank it out of position. Yes, that will certainly make it easier for you to tell lies and then completely retreat from the point.

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!

Hello Jar, hope you had a good new year’s celebration. But these are all things that we have everyday experience with. Do you believe that your analogy holds true for something that we have no experience with. For example if we were to find a piece of alien technology? Wouldn't discerning the identity of that designer be a priority for those investigating? Wouldn't knowing the identity lead to further areas of investigation? I believe the same is true for our hypothetical designer of life. By knowing who the designer is we may be able to answer questions such as why they designed a certain way or how they designed to begin with. I believe that chalking it up to mere historic footnotes doesn't even begin to answer all the new questions that will arise from knowing the identity of the designer.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

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!

This appears to be faulty logic.First you discount anything that "we have everyday experience with" and then you include "life".
We have everyday experience with life.
Your question "Do you believe that your analogy holds true for something that we have no experience with." is not relevent to life as we have experience of it.
Jar's analogy may or may not work with alien technology, but we are not talking about alien technology.Life is not "alien technology" or "something that we have no experience with", therefore your argument doesn't hold.Edited by Panda, : formattingEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

"How they designed to begin with" is the important part. We can reverse-engineer the design without knowing or caring who the designer was. The design is more important than the designer.Life is more likely to be reverse-engineered by somebody who believes it can be done than by somebody who believes only a spooky super-designer could do it. Knowing who the designer was could be a liability rather than an asset.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"