Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Well, I can understand that an argument from design has been attempted yet so far no indication of either design or designer or any need for any designer has been presented.Given that the idea is so ridiculous it rightly falls in the same category as design by pure chance.

Logic is irrelevant when dealing with reality as you have been told in the past. Things exist that are illogical. That is a fact.You begin with an unsupported assertion that something that appears to be designed was designed.Until you can support that it has no meaning.But wait, there's more.When things can be explained without the necessity of inserting some unevidence designer the existence of any such unevidenced designer is just pointless.Why should anyone insert the unevidenced designer when there is no reason or necessity to insert the unevidenced designer UNLESS the actual point of the exercise is an attempt to insert the unevidenced designer without the necessity of actually doing any research, providing any evidence or get around the restrictions required of reality based science?

But does it add anything at all other than unsupported assertions?

HUH?How is that an explanation of anything more than "turtles all the way"? I have seen that claim many times but like the words salad in the former quote, what meaning does that have and why haven't any such tests ever been performed?

Their position is even funnier when you realize that monkeys using a rock to crack nuts is an example of a machine and crows selecting hooked twigs to pull grubs from under bark are also using tools. Looks like the Intelligent Designer could be a monkey or a bird brain.

Green goods?

But you need to remember that the Biblical creator in Genesis 2&3 was far from perfect and in fact learning by doing so you would expect piss poor design.