Quote
It appears I have been mistaken. I previously thought this was intended to be a joke.

Quote
How would you try to do that? I know! We would not consider rabbits to be particularly intelligent, would we? Now, when 2 rabbits mate, the result is typically between 5 and 9 small objects with regulated moving parts. Voila! I have provided evidence that falsifies your hypothesis. whew! That took some work!
The previous paragraph in this post just got done claiming such a test would be disqualified.

Quote
If you mean life then you should be able to show evidence of the designer or lack thereof, otherwise life is not part of your experiment. The hypothesis states that no regulated moving part can occur without a designer. You can't determine if life had a designer so you can't use life as evidence in support or refutation of your hypothesis.

Is your attention span really that short, or were you being disingenuous?

The bunnies mating is an act of life forms.

A designer cannot be shown for Life, so saying that life has regulated moving parts cannot be used in supporting your hypothesis. Since a designer cannot be shown to be absent, I cannot say that life having regulated moving parts is a refutation of that hypothesis.

Now, unless you believe that the designer causes the bunnies to mate or puts together the components of the little bunnies, then baby bunnies have regulated moving parts that were not put together by a designer. You could say the designer, designed bunnies to make more bunnies and thus show my example to be in error. So be it.
However, I could then say that I believe in a Designer who made a universe with physical laws that allowed life to form without his having to lift a finger beyond the initial making of that universe. The advantage of my Designer is that He can exist and intervene in human affairs (Exodus, Jesus...etc) yet not be incompatible with abiogenesis, evolution or the Big Bang.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke