The problem is again in the philosophy of the evolutionist - it can't be designed because there is no designer so even when it looks like design by reason of its intricate organization, we call it 'designoid' or 'apparent design' as if you know for sure that something that truelly looks like design truelly can't have been designed.
That statement is always followed by "however, upon further study of said phenomenon we find that a perfectly good naturalistic explanation is found that removes the
'appearence' of design to the person working directly with the phenomenon."
So yes it may
'appear' designed, but no, after further study of it, its apparent that naturalistic causes are responsible. It has been pointed out to you in the past here on EVC that there are many natural structures on this planet that
'appear' designed but we know were caused my natural processes, so why do you continue to make a plee for the 'appearance' of design being actual
proof for design?
Do you have
evidence for design other than your opinion of how nature
appears to look? I believe thats whats being asked.
Edited by onifre, : spelling
"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky