Your post is an impolite and unworthy joke of a response
Oh hardly impolite. Pithy, perhaps. Pointed, possibly. But impolite ? Not a bit of it.
As for it being an unworthy joke of a response, it was a simple way of drawing to your attention, that combining two premises which are not true, into a syllogism, does not make the premises any the truer. Use of, and reference to, syllogisms as a way of impressing the audience is likely to fall on very stony ground around this forum.
I don't assume the premises are true.
then:
which are both obvious facts of life
Stating that something is "an obvious fact of life" is an assumption. There is no proof, no reasoning, no evidence - just an appeal to what you see as obvious. Science does not work that way - it needs observation, a theory, testing, evidence and replication and review by others. Saying something is "obvious" doesn't cut it - particularly when millions of people disagree with you. Maybe things aren't as obvious as you think.
The elements of intelligent design make something designed.
As has been pointed out to you, you have yet to define what the elements of intelligent design are. Have at it !
Until you have defined them, so that they preclude the possibility of something else being responsible for life as we know it, then the "elements of intelligent design" won't cut it for you. So far, you are effectively saying "1. Curious George has four limbs. 2. Humans have four limbs. 3. Therefore Curious George is a human."
Life has the elements of design.
No it doesn't. There we go, we've both asserted something.
NOT an assumption, but upon investigation
Scientists have done investigations too. They've observed fossils. They've sequenced genomes. They've witnessed life evolving on a daily basis. They've seen mouse populations change colour to adapt to new surroundings. As Dr A has pointed out to you, they've seen flies evolve new wings. They've made predictions, based on their theories, and seen them proven correct. They've made cures for genetic and other diseases, based on this understanding.
And you have your view that life sure looks designed to you.
No theory - no evidence - no predictions. Just your opinion.
An analogy may help here, to emphasise the fundamental issue which I take with your opinion. Consider a shape sorter - the toy which a toddler plays with, pushing shaped pieces of plastic into shaped holes. That activity requires intelligence to undertake successfully - the toddler needs to look at the shape of the piece in his hand, and match it to the shaped hole to push it through. The fact that a shape has been pushed through might be taken as evidence of an intelligent process. Except that that is not the only way a piece might go through. If you shake the pieces on top of the plastic box enough, then eventually one of them will fall through, by random chance. You have to shake it a hell of a lot of times, of course, but it will eventually happen, without any intelligent agency. And that is what evolution does. It shakes the box incessantly, and once in a while, a piece falls through.
Just because something looks like it happened through an intelligent agency, does not mean that it did.
And just because you think that something belongs to a particular class or group, just because it looks like one, does not make it so.
If that is your view, then I would recommend caution, if ever you visit Thailand.
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
