The Watchmaker: my fav argument

[John 6IX Breezy]

Since he states that it's a matter of public fact and that they ("ID") did predict it, the phrase you reference could refer to either the intelligent design movement, or the arguments and theories.

In a petty attempt to win, and review some of my class notes, let’s take a dive into argument reconstruction:

(TL/DR - I'm right, he's wrong, and you've wasted my time.)
 
Step One: Close Analysis

“Intelligent design isn't [discounting term] about aliens and you know it [abusive assurance], lol. If you want people to take you seriously [abusive assurance], try taking yourself seriously [abusive assurance] first? At any rate, [discounting term] suppose [guarding term] that ID was about aliens...it's still [conclusion marker] been falsified. It posited [premise maker] an irreducible complexity which [premise marker] does not exist. I see you butchering sim theory [abusive assurance] - it's not actually [discounting term] an intelligent design theory, but go off, I guess? [negative evaluation]”
 
Step Two: Remove excess verbiage

“Intelligent design isn't about aliens and you know it, lol. If you want people to take you seriously, try taking yourself seriously first? [tangent] At any rate, suppose that ID was about aliens [road marker]

...it's still [conclusion marker] been falsified. It posited [premise maker] an irreducible complexity which [premise marker] does not exist.

I see you butchering sim theory- it's not actually an intelligent design theory, but go off, I guess?” [tangent]
 
Step Three: List explicit arguments in standard form

• P1: It posited an irreducible complexity
  
• P2: which does not exist
  
• C3: it's still been falsified
  

 
Step Four: Clarify

• P1: Intelligent Design posited an irreducible complexity
  
• P2: Irreducible Complexity does not exist
  
• C3: Intelligent Design has been falsified
  

In conclusion: There are several more steps that can be added to iron out the argument, but this is sufficient. In science we either formulate hypotheses inductively from previous data, or deductively from a theory. It is this second method, of deducting hypotheses from theories, that allows for falsification of a theory. And it is precisely this deduction that Nudger's first premise is built upon. Therefore it contains the following suppressed conditional: 

• If intelligent design is true, then irreducible complexity exists. 
  

To which I'll simply refute with your own words: 

• "Design doesn't necessarily imply irreducible complexity...."  -Angrboba, March 2021.
  

Addendum: Not only did he make an invalid deduction from intelligent design. It is obvious that intelligent design does not refers to a movement—which you comically suggested. It is incoherent to claim that a movement can be falsified. Only propositions can be true or false. Therefore, intelligent design here refers to the theory, not some movement. But we already knew that, didn't we? You were just hoping to save face.

I hereby declare this case closed. No further arguments shall be heard. Thank you.