Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}

When encountering the Designer issue , i always like to ask the following ..what raw material did the designer start with ...
1. nothing
2. a universe empty of matter
3. a flat pack self assembly universe with the optional unicorn and winged horse figures .What was the designer aiming to produce ...
1. the human race
2. the kingdom of the ant
3. a world where genetic engineering could make unicorns and winged horsesis the designer in active control of the design .. if so
1. did he/she remove the dinosaurs because they perfer little furry mammals
2. why make so few humans so funny looking
3. why are there no fun creatures like unicorns and winged horsesis there going to be a finished product ...if so
1. will the designer just turn the lights of and put the universe in a box on a high shelf
2. will the designer appear and give out winners medals
3. will the designer try a new version ... universe 2 ... the unicon strikes back ...the problem i have is that if it is ID then the whole question shifts from ,why is the world as we see it to ,the nature of the designer .. you can forget ALL science , ALL considered thought on the nature of man and the universe .. all you need to find is the designers moblie phone number and ask them to text you the answer to the big WHY ? not this then becomes very simple .. is it possilbe to contact the designer .. if not well may as well give up .. sit back and just watch the show we are part of ...nothing has any real value .. Howevr IF you can speak to the designer does that mean we have out grown the design .. and do we then need the designer any more ?.. (( ok this assumes we have free will and are not organic robots within the design ))

ok a bunch of points / replies heremessage 10 from bluejay ..if you are goign to put forward ID you must has some position on who/what the designer is ... as it is the core of your view .. you do not try to explain ToE without genetics , so how can you explain ID with out the designer ...
the comparisons to human design paintings, buildings, cars , cloths .. all shows that there is many more than one way to design something .. thus asking ID to explain why something would have been designed that why .. which directly questions the nature and actions of the designer .. unless we a re happy with the classic ..because .. answermessage 11 from subbiethis does raise the question is ID a stand alone idea , or is it there to rebutt ToE .... and as to the Good Old Designer issue , this goes back to my first question ...What raw material did the designer start with?.. which leave the whole creation issue in the air ..message 13 by bluegenesi do agree with you , but ...On a well designed planet, there should no such anachronisms .. every thing should fit in place like meshing gear wheels .. OR there should be impossible gaps and vast numbers of totally unrelated examples ...then again as you say may it is omphalism world ........................................................................
ID has the great asset that it has no target that can disprove it .... until ID defines the designer and his/her methods is some way it is not ready to enter the arena as a real explaination of the unviverse .

I think we are agreeing , while just slightly missreading each other , to use yourexample .. when i talk about knowing about the designer i dont mean at the personal level .. like your Mr Nils Are Oritsland .. i mean knowing about the nature of the designer , just as you knew Nils Are Oritsland is a scientist , of good reputaion ,and is knowledgable in the field of thermoregulation of polar bears ...You would not have picked The complete works of Bach as a referance for your review on the thermoregulation of polar bears , it would be meaningless ...you pick some one because.." having read his materials and methods, I know exactly how each of his research papers was carried out"you understood the "designers" methods , reasoning ,aims ,goals .. and by that understanding could see how his research workes ,and explains .Moving on .. i do agree a designer could make use of evolution to carry forth the design .. but that does mean only the start conditions are set and it is then allowed to run .. this more smacks of a expriment-er than a designer .. unless he has magic hands to poke the direction of evolution , and activly drops rocks from space .

clearly you you have never seen a work by Jackson Pollock , go look at one , wiki pollock and look at No.5 ,(Jackson Pollock - Wikipedia)now following you route which part of the painting shows intelligence ? as opposed to randomness , can you see a design ..so.. moving on from a pointless analogy ....now here is where you shoot yourself in the foot but good .... ??? why not .. is not the nature of the creator .( note your word .. not designer ) fundermental to the understanding of everything .. if such a creator exsists ... understand the creator and you remove any need for debate about evolution or any other human discovery ....what better point could you possible make than to explain who designed everything and how they did it ....

ok in all your examples you are taking sometime , a painting , a UFO all of which are artifical constructs .... claiming they look like they where designed .. therefore they have a designer ...well yes they where designed ... big deal ..now pick a creature ....anyone you like and show me where the design comes in .... list the features that demand a designer ...
show where one can spot the workmanship ......like the equivelent of the painters brush strokes , or the painter use of light and shade .. or the UFO builders door handle for a 7 fingered three thumbed hand ... or the UFO's chlorine based internal atmosphere ....a await your insights .....

are you able to pick a creature for us to see where the design feature can be spotted ... or shall we move on from that ?? ...your number 70 post .. really ..here is what wikipedia has to say on DNA and infomation .. hmmm seems DNA and its infomation can manage with out a designer .. who would have guessed that .. next ...Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

sooo i guess you are still looking for that creature that is a good example of design ? May be you should go look at that computer game called Spore .. where you get to design a creature ....might give you a hint or two ...by the way when i look at my hand .. from a design point of view .. i think ... hmm two thunmbs would be much better , and double jointedness for the fingers ...nails that either grow much slower or dont break and get ragged .. hang on why nails at all ....and the thing the hand is mounted on .. the arm that is a bit limited in design , better rotation at the shoulder , being able to effectivly use your hands behind your back , now that would be a useful design ....Oh no i forgot the hand WAS designed .. and that means it cant be changed .. a design is a FIXED product .. i will have to go back to the desginer to get a upgrade .. is HAND ver 2.037.03 beta released yet ?sorry my imagination ran wild there ...Soo if everything is designed .. how do we get upgrades .. and what does the designer think of cross breeds ..clearley changing the design that was intended ? ? ? are all the modern roses growing in peoples gardens a crime vs design ... i mean mere humans selectivly breed then for colour and flower shape .. chnaging how they where meant to be ..if it is a crime .. what will be the punishment ....if its not does that mean we can go around evolving new looks .... like a extra thumb ??

seems to me we have strayed from the OP ..which was the nature of Beretta's designer.....clues i have picked up from the 100 odd post so far ... please correct me if i am wrong ...god, the god of the bible , did it , he did it in the ..outside of time and space room ....and he did it with the magic ... not sure if any of the new testement stuff is involed so may just be the old jewish bits ....i guess what was confusing me was i though this was a ID designer .. but it turns out its a atypical bible creationist designer...so what Beretta is saying is .. well .....nothing newno new evidence , no new reasoned debate , no new counter interpretations of the material in question ...maybe this thread should be moved to faith and belief or bible studies ....still i would have like to debate if a Pollock painting is a example of design.. and if you can really understand it without understanding Pollock and his body of other works ....
life such a odd thing .....