Confusing mice with mousetraps

As well it should - it's usually the word people use when what they mean to say is "I'm going to assert that this is true, and because I don't have a good argument that it is, I'm going to couch it in dripping condescension so that you don't ask me for evidence." Obvious or not, we have clearly definied, rigorous procedures to detect these things beyond doubt, that don't rely on subjective human decisions. What similar test or procedure exists to detect design? That's what you're being asked.

You're being stoned because you don't seem to be applying any kind of consistent criteria for the detection of design; this one thing you say is designed, this other you say is not, even though they share otherwise identical characteristics. Anybody can read through the history books and examine the origins of an object as recorded at the time. But you've made a different claim - you claim that you can detect the presence of design absent any record of the history of the object; only via the inherent characteristics of the object.You're being stoned because, in spite of making this claim (in fact, stating that it's so trivial to do so that it's "obvious"), you steadfastly refuse to apply it to any case whatsoever. Why is that, exactly? You've advanced a claim that you can detect design for objects for whom we have no recorded history, such as living things. Why won't you actually attempt to make that detection?

I did misunderstand. My apologies. Looking back on the thread I don't exactly see why everybody's all up in your face.