IDists also have evidence of design
Again, you are stating as fact what you are being asked to prove.
Again, you are assuming the consequent.
The entire paragraph from which the above is taken is a restatement of Paley's fallacy: claiming that evidence of elaborated, integrated function (call it, for short, evidence of design) is evidence of intelligent design. It is a false argument.
Because the TOE only tries to explain what happened once life was already in existence, there is no 'unexplained phenomenon' ID can address concerning evolution that cannot be explained by evolutionists with the predicted response, 'NSDI.'
Fiddlesticks. When 'evolutionists' say 'NSDI' they have to prove it, and they do. If they don't, the explanation will not be accepted. In humiliating contrast, no-one has ever been able to prove GDI, or 'DDI' if you prefer. It cannot be proved because it cannot be proved false.
Evolutionary biologists actually have a derogatory term to describe evolutionary explanations for natural phenomena presented without solid supporting evidence. They are called 'just-so stories', after Kipling, and they are rightly despised.
there is nothing unexplainable from TOE's point of view as well to explain the variety of life.
Fiddlesticks again. There are plenty of aspects of life evolutionary theory has trouble explaining: why homosexuality is universal in human populations (see above), how and why music and art evolved, ditto the religious impluse. Explanations alone are not enough; in science, proof is demanded.
The fact that proof is so often available clearly illustrates the validity -- indeed, one may well say, the truth -- of natural selection as a hypothesis.
In the end, your long post does not provide any proof for intelligent design, either in the form proposed in the OP of this thread or in any other form. It simply repeats things you have said before, and justifies those repetitions with the same old exploded arguments you have offered before.
You're repeating yourself, Ashley. Boring boring boring. You bang on and you bang on, trying to hide the truth in clouds of rose-pink rhetorical smoke, but the truth will not be hid. And the truth is that, despite many promises, you have repeatedly failed to produce that elusive proof of ID the world is looking for.
Flunked. Next, please.
* * *
Reply to the other two
You two are asking the same question, so one answer will do for both.
And the consequent (Paley) assumed was? Oh wait!! the goal posts are moving too fast for me to keep up
The same one you assumed: namely, that evidence of 'design' (in fact: elaborated, integrated function) is evidence of intelligent design, which is the consequent he wanted to prove.
The goalposts never moved. The reason you have to keep jogging up and down is that your argument falls flat as a pancake the second you stop to look at it head-on.
Which of Paley's premises are false? The 'logical' ones. To repeat them yet again (Upuluvanna grant me patience!),
All A are B.
X is B.
Therefore X is A.
Do I know Paley's entire argument? Yeth darling. Apart from the original illogical statement, it consists merely of heartbreaking little attempts to shore up that statement with others equally illogical. Look:
Nor, fifthly, would it yield his inquiry more satisfaction, to be answered that there existed in things a principle of order, which had disposed the parts of the watch into their present form and situation. He never knew a watch made by the principle of order; nor can he even form to himself an idea of what is meant by a principle of order distinct from the intelligence of the watchmaker.
Bad logic ('I can't imagine it, so it can't exist!') pressed into the service of even worse logic.
A law presupposes an agent, for it is only the mode according to which an agent proceeds...
Yes, we all know how the law of gravity is really the outcome of angels chucking stuff about.
Far from standing unrefuted, Paley's argument refutes itself. And were that not enough, the vast corpus of science that so terrorizes you refutes it utterly.
If this is the best you can do to produce proof of ID the world is looking for, I can only say -- what sorry stuff.
* * *
He speak with forked tongue
Calling me a reptile will not reinforce your case.
It may, however, draw the unwelcome attention of a moderator.
But don't worry, I won't tell.
I don't deny ignorance, I want to erradicate it. Wishful thinking, clearly. 
<----- That's not me crying out of hurt. That's me laughing so hard I'm crying. 
