Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[LadyForCamus]

And, what would it take for you to acknowledge an argument from ignorance fallacy? There are things on this planet that appear designed, but are not designed.

I would suggest you start by defining "designed" as you're using it here, just to make sure you're not including "directly seeing the designer" in the definition. In which case it's automatic for you to reject any argument from design.

This is your argument. What is your definition of design? For the third time I’ll ask: was a snowflake designed?

Therefore, the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of actual design.

Again, it seems the only thing that would convince you of design is witnessing the design process

No. What would convince me of design is evidence of the designer, because that is the only way to get to a rationally justified belief in ID.

you are excluding any argument starting from precise laws of chemistry/physics that led to the things you think they only have the appearance of design. And the existence of laws do warrant a lawgiver.

So, your god had to fine tune natural laws down to the quantum level in order for us to be able to exist? Why is god so constricted by the laws of nature? Not much of a god if you ask me.