What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison?In general an ID supporter does not first prove the existence of a deity and then from that point progress to evidence of intelligent design of the universe. Instead they tend to point at a earthly phenomenon and proclaim that it could only have been created by an intelligent entity, and from that point conclude that their preconceived beliefs are supported. Bear with me as I spell out this logical argument:Premises:
1) There are things in the world which are natural, and things which are designed.
2) Humans are capable of distinguishing with a high degree of accuracy between natural things and designed things.Logic:
1) ID supporter declares an example thing which most consider to be naturally occurring to be designed.Conclusion:
1) Everything that exists was designed.Most discussions get hung up on disproving the "logic" portion of the debate, even ignoring the logical leap that the example cited is representative of the whole of reality (Inductive Fallacy). I would instead like to focus on the crucial fact that the proposed conclusion disproves the premise itself. *IF* the entirety of creation was designed then there are no natural occurring things with which to be distinguished from designed things. Therefore the declaration of an ID supporter that something was clearly designed inherently contradicts their proposed conclusion.Hence my question: If you believe that everything was intelligently designed, what is your basis of comparison?Edit: "Therefore the declaration of an ID supporter that something was clearly designed inherently contradicts their proposed conclusion."I suppose I got a bit wordy here, what I was trying to say is this: By making this argument an ID supporter is assuming something in their argument that they ultimately conclude to be false, making the entire argument invalid.The logic is sort of like this:
1) A and B exist, and can be distinguished.
2) B is distinguished in one case.
3) Therefore, B in all cases.My point is not that one instance of B cannot be extended to the whole of creation. My point is fundamental to logical argument itself; if you disprove a premise of a logical argument then the argument collapses. In the above arguments the first premise, if true, makes it impossible to reach the conclusion through valid logic.What I am interested in is how an ID supporter avoids this problem in their arguments.Edited by Phage0070, : Clarity

I hope the edit makes it more clear.

quote:

---

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complexity theory, or biology.
-Wikipedia

---

Your premise appears to be deeply flawed. This is common knowledge.

Quite true, always happy to cite:Rich Baldwin, (2005). Information Theory and Creationism
Information Theory and Creationism: William DembskiMark Perakh, (2005). Dembski "displaces Darwinism" mathematically -- or does he?
Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologeticsJason Rosenhouse, (2001). How Anti-Evolutionists Abuse Mathematics The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall 2001, pp. 3-8.
http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf

quote:

---

In algorithmic information theory (a subfield of computer science), the Kolmogorov complexity of an object such as a piece of text is a measure of the computational resources needed to specify the object.

---

And this is related to its probability of occurrence how?It is obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

And what does the chance of reproducing it have to do with Kolmogorov complexity, the computational resources required to specify the object?

And that does not relate to its probability of occurring. Some very complex things are virtually certain to occur; decomposition for instance. Other, simpler things are much less likely to occur; for instance, the components of an object being arranged completely uniformly.

That is not what Kolmogorov complexity describes. For example:

quote:

---

abababababababababababababababababababababababababababababababab
4c1j5b2p0cv4w1x8rx2y39umgw5q85s7uraqbjfdppa0q7nieieqe9noc4cvafzf

---

The first string is very easy to define; it is "ab" 32 times. The second string is much harder to describe short of just writing the string down. Both are equally likely to occur given random chance, as they both have 64 characters.So, as you should see now, they are not related. You didn't understand what you were talking about, and neither did your source.

Are you just mentioning random vaguely-related concepts hoping one of them supports you? You were quoted three articles that disproved your theory, you provided feeble and easily refuted complaints for two, and the third you didn't even understand. You have been proven wrong on this criticism and your attempts to justify yourself are just digging a bigger hole.

I just showed you how Kolmogorov complexity does not equate to the probability of said string happening by chance. If you cannot understand that, it is your problem.