1. It is known that complex machines and factories are intelligently designed
2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines
3. Biological cells are intelligently designed...

1. It is known that complex machines and factories are intelligently designed by humans
2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines
3. Biological cells are intelligently designed... by humans.

Welcome to Ratskep!

Well, I'm convinced.

I haven't seen a creationist argument this dumb in awhile. And it isn't even a fresh one

Drive-by.

1. Indian restaurants are intelligently designed.
2. Cells are intelligently designed
3. Cells are decorated with flock wallpaper.

Debunking Naturalism wrote:1. It is known that complex machines and factories are intelligently designed

That premise commits the fallacy of exclusion.

Here is how it would look if the excluded evidence was included:
1. It is known that [some] complex machines and factories are intelligently designed [by humans].

But this would of course radically alter the conclusion you derive, as it would then become:
2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines
3. Biological cells are intelligently designed [by humans].

Yet we know that there are some "complex machines and factories" that weren't designed by humans, but instead evolved. Or alternatively if, we didn't know how the complex machines or factories of the cell came to exist, we'd still be left with the conclusion that humans must have designed and manufactured them. But of course we couldn't have designed and manufactured them, they predate the origin of the human species.

So the problem is that you can't reach the conclusion you desire from the knowledge that humans are able to and have on occasion designed and manufactured machines. You can't get from that knowledge to the conclusion that all machines must have been designed and manufactured by some sort of intelligence.

You can't jump straight from "some complex machines and factories are intelligently designed by humans"
to
"therefore all complex machines and factories are intelligently designed by some sort of intelligence".

It simply doesn't follow.

The specific fallacy your argument suffers from is called the fallacy of exclusion: https://afterall.net/illogic/inductive/fallacy-of-exclusion-and-suppressed-evidence/

Debunking Naturalism wrote:1. It is known that complex machines and factories are intelligently designed

Certainly not all. Lots evolved from much simpler precursors.

By the way I'm pretty sure the OP is former banned member Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elshamah77, aka I don't even remember all his previous socks over the years.

Debunking Naturalism wrote:1. It is known that complex machines and factories are intelligently designed

Correct.

Debunking Naturalism wrote:2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines

Incorrect and proven so by your first premise. We do not know that biological cells are designed and therefore they do not qualify as machines. Complex or otherwise.

Map/terrain. Rinse/repeat.

RS

Wasn't much bite in this toy.

There is a further problem with inferring design. What sort of designer was responsible for it. Was it a single super designer who never makes mistakes? Or was it multiple designers with finite capabilities who are fallible? The latter sort of designer is the only sort of designer that we have direct experience with, and therefore, according to the Argument from Design, that was what is responsible for every design that ever was.

Some were working in metric units, others in Imperial, and the old dudes worked in cubits and digits. No wonder nothing fucking works.

Debunking Naturalism wrote:1. It is known that complex machines and factories are intelligently designed

Design implies simplicity, not complexity. Our machines so simple that they pale in compersion to the living cell. If a designer made it, it would be rather simple, not complex like we see. Also emergence:

[quote=Wikipedia]In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," meaning the whole has properties its parts do not have. These properties come about because of interactions among the parts.

Emergence plays a central role in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry, and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things[/quote]

At it's most basic, life is simply advanced chemistry.

Debunking Naturalism wrote:2. Biological cells are factories full of complex machines

This nothing than an analogy for laymen, that creationists with very poor redating compersion take too seriously. When looking at real cells, they look chaos, but they are simplified into motor-like structures for the public to understand.

Debunking Naturalism wrote:3. Biological cells are intelligently designed...

False as these cells would be simple, not complex. Besides, you're looking at as it is right now. The first cells we know of were simple DNA and or RNA strands in a cell well. Therefore, since cells are complex and "full of complex machines", the first cells were not "intelligently designed"? Makes you think.