Logic is irrelevant when dealing with reality as you have been told in the past. Things exist that are illogical. That is a fact.
You begin with an unsupported assertion that something that appears to be designed was designed.
Until you can support that it has no meaning.
But wait, there's more.
When things can be explained without the necessity of inserting some unevidence designer the existence of any such unevidenced designer is just pointless.
Why should anyone insert the unevidenced designer when there is no reason or necessity to insert the unevidenced designer UNLESS the actual point of the exercise is an attempt to insert the unevidenced designer without the necessity of actually doing any research, providing any evidence or get around the restrictions required of reality based science?
For example, the hypothesis of eukaryotic front-loading explains why core eukaryotic proteins have well-conserved structural and sequence protein homologs in prokaryotes, as opposed to some of these essential proteins having been cobbled together from non-functional stretches of prokaryotic genomes (e.g., pseudogenes).
How is that an explanation of anything more than "turtles all the way"?
Further, specific design hypotheses provide predictions which can then be experimentally tested.
I have seen that claim many times but like the words salad in the former quote, what meaning does that have and why haven't any such tests ever been performed?
Quibbling over whether or not it really does superficially look like a machine seems like the wrong approach. Especially given that being a "machine" can be something as simple as having a triangular shape.
Their position is even funnier when you realize that monkeys using a rock to crack nuts is an example of a machine and crows selecting hooked twigs to pull grubs from under bark are also using tools. Looks like the Intelligent Designer could be a monkey or a bird brain.