No, you have demonstrated that one specific kind of creationism based on arbitrarily defined 'markers' is falsifiable because we could find out the markers don't exist. There will always remain the 'God put those fossils there to test our faith' defense so no one can prove God doesn't exist.
Encoded deterministic information and artificial languages clearly exist and have only been found in things that are designed. I do not make an appeal to God, I claim this is a telltale sign of intelligent design.
Now since materialism (the idea that materialistic mechanisms account for this universe and everything in it) is truly untestable and unfalsifiable, are you prepared to agree that materialism is nonscientific?
Can you find an instance where I claimed that they do?
Very well then I will assume you claim materialism is not a scientific premise. It follows that methodological materialism is an invalid presupposition and should be removed from scientific studies.
But there is no way I can say that any of those things are out of reach of design simply because we know nothing about the designer (including, by the way, whether or not it exists) and therefore we know nothing about what it can or can't do.
Yes we can. We know what design is because we design things and we observe design directly. We should not presume design can accomplish anything, because we do not observe that. We should only assign to design what we reasonably suspect it can do.
The designer doesn't have to be 'all powerful' - we do not know anything about the designer. We do not know the designers capabilities. Since we are limited by the scientific method to what we know or can discover ID will remain conjecture until we discover an entity capable of designing life. Have you found one?
Not yet, but we can be reasonably sure that given enough information, human designers can make life from non-life. Do you doubt this?
Science does not require us to identify the designer, all that is required is to show that design can accomplish what is claimed.
Unlike imaginary designers, about whom we can assert whatever we want, material explanations must be shown to be capable of what we claim them to be capable of. That's why we cannot make blanket assertions about them.
Nonsense. As I said above. We can only attribute to design what we observe of design or can reasonably suggest design can do.
You can repeat that accusation as much as you want, I have explained why design is not a scientific explanation. I did not just declare it to be so.
You have explained why you don't care for the design inference and nothing more. Your justification was flawed because you extended ID to a mythical designer capable of anything. ID does not make this claim.
