Even if there was a Designer, does it matter?

I already told you I thought your automobile analogy was stupid. I'm not going to repeat my reasons for not respecting your so-called test but feel free to revisit Message 117.
How God would have done it if he were as smart as me is not a test that I recognize.He did not do things as YOU see fit! He did things as HE saw fit to accomplish the goals and purposes of his plan. Who cares how you or any of you think it "should" have been done? Who the hell do you think you are? NO we wouldn't. "Good enough" takes incredibly intelligent designed systems working in harmony to achieve the end result. To even refer to life as we see it as "just good enough" is an understatement of monumental proportions!Got to run,
ICOne living cell is more complex than the space shuttle. Would you call the space shuttle "just good enough"?

We may find it important, but why would that matter?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Creo: It's all designed!
Scientist: How do you know?
Creo: It looks designed!
Scientist: But it doesn't look like anything man would design.
Creo: That's because God doesn't design like man does.
Scientist: If it doesn't look like anything man designed, how do you know it's designed?
Creo: Because it looks like it's designed!
Scientist bangs head against wall until creo leaves.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Stop and actually think.You asked for a test. I presented a test. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with anything or think something is stupid, it is a test.If you have another test propose it and we will take a look at it. HUH?Again, how is one living cell more complex than the Space Shuttle? What is your measurement tool for complexity?And yes, of course, the Space Shuttle was just barely good enough to get by most of the time, but it also is an example of design just like the cars, and we can see many of the aspects I outlined above as well as the known limitations of those things designed by humans.But you are still not addressing the issue.The issue remains, even where we can see design, other than as an historical footnote or in the case of product liability suits, does the designer matter?

---

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

If it doesn't matter if a designer exist or not, it definitely doesn't matter if one exists, which was my point of its being non sequitur.
The fact is that it has no bearing on the topic.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

The suggestion is that if there is designer it has left no trace of it's existence or indeed any hallmarks of design. This means the existence of a designer that cannot be detected nor can his handy work, is irrelevant.

How the heck do you measure complexity? Last time I looked cells don't have rocket engines or computers.Two space shuttles were not "just good enough".

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

I'll be happy to school you another time and another thread of the vast complexity of a cell and how arrogant your "just good enough" comments are, but for now lets address your so-called test. Your standard for the test is assuming that you know what God's intentions were when he created everything. Was his intention to create everything to be the best he knew how to make it?
(I'm sure this is probably above your head jar but try to keep up so I don't have to see another
"Huh?" from you.)Could God have created, man for example, to run faster, be stronger, see better, never get sick,
have poop that doesn't stink and so on and so forth? You and your evolutionist friends are convinced that what we see is the very best God was capable of producing.
With that mindset I can understand your misunderstanding of what we see in the world from a God who is said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient.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.ICdesignEdited by ICdesign, : No reason given.

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!

It has everything to do with intent. Your arrogance offends me to the point of literally making me sick to my stomach.
Your going to hold God liable? I never said God is not doing his best. You don't know what the end goal is or what path has to be taken to reach that goal. Only God knows. That's why he is God and your not.
His ways are not our ways.
As it says in 2Corinthians 12:9 ...power is perfected in weakness.God has a plan and we are in the middle of the execution of his divine plan. Period.I find your arrogance so incredibly offensive that I will not correspond any further with you jar.ICdesign

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!

Brilliant post.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Ofcourse. For all sorts of reasons. Credit being the first.First you need to understand information, and how it qualifies as mind-blowingly brilliant design, far beyond human-design. (I recommend, "In the beginning was information" by Dr Werner Gitt).Ofcourse I could go into all of the reasons as to why it matters if there is a designer.If God exists, no matter what anybody says - what He says counts most, and what He says that will happen, will happen.So if you want to know why we exist, why we continue to exist and what will happen after death, if anything, then all of these questions are acceptable. Also if you want to know how the universe will end up.I think the burden of proof is on those saying it doesn't matter, because the full induction of human history is 100% evidence that it TOTALLY matters to people.P.s. Why on earth would a person that believes in Christ, want to ask such a question anyway? If you have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit, been born again etc...why is your theism no different from atheism? To what end does your question glorify God?Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

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!