We didn't need any more evidence for this but Lizzie provided it- she is ignorant of science. Read it for yourselves.
She is so stupid she doesn't understand that we detect design before trying to figure out how it was designed. Earth to Lizzie- we don't know how many of the artifacts we found were constructed and we have the capability to reproduce those.
If the ID case is that if we can reject Law and Chance as the explanation for a complex object, we must accept Design (this is the Explanatory Filter version of the argument, but others are similar), then the Design must be operating outside the Laws of Nature.
That is not how the EF works, moron. We have to not only eliminate necessity and chance but there also has to be a pattern, a specification, before we infer design. And no, dumbass, that doesn't mean the Design is operating outside the laws of nature. My car doesn't operate outside of the laws of nature. The laws of nature are incapable of producing cars. You, Lizzie, are one retarded loser.
Human designers, I suggest, do not operate outside the Law of Nature, so that is one problem with the EF.
How the fuck is that a problem for the EF?
What I’m asking is where the energy comes from when that force is applied to mass in a manner that results in additional kinetic energy being imparted to the mass.
Where did the energy for materialism come from, Lizzie? Yours can't even explain the laws of nature, dumbass. The DESIGNED universe is full of energy, Lizzie. The Designer just needed to tap into that, just as we do- duh. Matter, energy and information- all designed, Lizzie.
And guess what? We don't have to know the answer to your question before we can determine whether or not something is intelligently designed. We don't even ask the who or how until we first determine intelligent design is present.
And the sad part is if Lizzie could find some positive evidence for her lame position she wouldn't have to worry about ID.