Your method has been to presume that order is design. So that if one observes order they have observed design. This is not science. Science is not allowed to presume that which it intends to discover.
IDM: Sean O'Malley paints things green. I observe a green painted thing. Therefore, it was painted by Sean O'Malley.
SM: Sean O'Malley paints things green. I observe a green painted thing. Are there explanations other than it having been painted by Sean O'malley? Upon examination I find that I can paint things green. Therefore, not all green painted things are painted by Sean O'Malley.
Notice the question in the latter? That is the bit IDM is lacking.
Additionally:
As of yet, except for Frako, no one has even attempted even a hint at that question.
Frako wrote "Yes, but" not just yes. Several here have said "Yes, but". Everyone here knows "Yes, but". The "but" is the significant part. If one claims to be a skydiver then prattles on about "Do not skydivers go up in airplanes?"; "Do not skydivers wear parachutes?"; "Do not skydivers jump out of airplanes?"; "If all of that is true how am I not a skydiver?" The answer is "Yes, all of that is true, but to be a skydiver one has to do more that just say it."
Are you ever going to do more than just say it?
Edited by lyx2no, : Fill a few holes in my argument. Namely the ones between "sky" and "diver". "Skydiver" is one word.
Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
