Intelligent Design just a question for evolutionists

Despite the fact that it IS a creationist argument and you ARE a creationist - the journalistic principle of 'consider the source' always applies - syllogisms don't prove anything - they're as likely to be invalid as valid. So.....All animals have 4 legs
A dog has 4 legs
Therefore a dog is an animal..... turns out by observation to be correctBut...All elephants have 4 legs
All tables have 4 legs
Therefore all tables are elephants.....turns out by observation not to be correctYou can't prove anything with words - your syllogism turns out to be nothing more than a weak hypothesis that can only be proven by observation, measurement, testing and experiment. ie science. And science dismisses it. Game over.

To mirror your daft approach to knowledge, this is a fallacy of tautology and begging the question ... 'if it's true, then it's true'.We can't know a table isn't an elephant without observation. Once we have observation - i.e. science - we know. Until we know, the syllogism is worthless because we can't tell whether it's valid or otherwise.The 'conclusion' derived from the syllogism is merely a hypothesis. Your word tricks are far inferior to observation and indeed, depend on them.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Taq is being polite.What we're all thinking is that your pseudo-logic waffle translates to:'I think it looks designed, therefore Goddidit'You've got some work to do, but it's very old argument that's been refuted over and over so unless you've got something new....Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.