So then, may I assume that in each case where you've come across a man-made object and understood it to be such, you accept it as "man-made" because you've seen it manufactured before, and therefore know it is designed? This is the only evidence that would convince you of intelligent design? I don't think so. I would like to know what properties of an object lead you to conclude intelligent design was involved with it's existence.
I am starting to get the distinct impression that you value your time far less than I value mine.
I happen to be persistent. I also wish to ask simple questions in order to understand where you are coming from. The time spent in dialogue with you has been valuable indeed, but worth it.
OK, I've got to go in a minute & my mouse keeps freezing up, which is very annoying.. (and I turn into a big jerk when I'm annoyed!) Our debate looks as if it may be protracted so I'll get back to this tonight.
No, and that isn't what I said. I said I had to at least see a representation of the manufacturing process in general. BTW, we actually have plenty of verification of this phenomenon because we know how people that are ignorant of the manufacturing process react to said objects (i.e., from historical accounts and from psychological studies). They think that many of the objects are alive or are magical.
What I said was that I recognize technology when I see it and so long as I am able to classify an object as technology I can deduce its origins as manufactured.
This is the only evidence that would convince you of intelligent design? I don't think so. I would like to know what properties of an object lead you to conclude intelligent design was involved with it's existence.
It evidences the attributes of being manufactured - i.e., the application of manual implements.