rationalskepticism.org

Again you are evading the point, whether intentionally or by miscomprehension.

To posit design, you must posit intent. Design is defined by intent. Without intent, there is no design, only the appearance of design like sand blowing up against a wall and leaving a 'designed' slope, or a mammal taking a crap and leaving a 'designed' spiral.

I know that design means intent. I know that, you don't have to keep repeating that. But what you also have to understand is that I do not have to know what the intent was, in order to detect design in the first place. If I found a piece of paper on the street that had something written on it, I wouldn't know why the person that wrote that, did it. But I would certainly know it was designed.

Then, fundamentally, you are demanding that our language change to accomodate your belief. Unfortunately for you, that is not going to happen. You are now delving into the realm of pseudoscience. Design necessarily implies intent, when you say you see design, you are saying that you see realised intent.

Design is intent, but I do not have to know exactly what the intent was in order to detect design.

I am saying it again because it's like you have a blind spot here and just can't see where your argument leads.

But following your ill-defined position of inferring design, everything could be designed. It's a typical form of pseudoscience when all roads lead to Rome.

Wrong. According to my method, snowflakes were not designed.