I'm not your enemy, yet you seem to go after the person rather than the points made. I don't really need to grow thicker skin. I'm not offended at all. I just don't bother with what comes across as pompous rhetoric.

You accuse me of not engaging, yet you haven't really engaged with my original comment in any meaningful way, other than in an insulting manner. Then you start playing games rather than grasping that common decency in these discussions goes a long way. When watching/listening to good debates, notice how well the debaters stay on topic, point out the argument itself, and generally avoid any advance toward the other person's integrity or personal character. I was hoping to influence you to show mutual respect.

"You made an argument from ignorance propped up with a false dichotomy." I find that sentence to be harsher than what I wrote previously but if you find it less condescending the message is the same.

Because one can respond in a harsher manner hardly negates having done so. I provided a longer response under @steevc's comment, in case it's of interest.

You have assumed that you made a decent argument in the OP. But, again, while understandable, it wasn't really convincing. You also asked for people to engage, which I have tried to do in a meaningful and respectful manner. You go on to state that you don't take a position. But you must, by default, even if it's simply to refute any claims of ID. Yet the idea of ID is one that is completely impossible to disprove.

In an effort to oblige and move the discussion back OT -
The order around us, along with the principles of irreducible complexity and specific complexity, plus the laws of thermodynamics, testify of design. If you refuse to accept that, as I noted earlier, it's entirely understandable. But such denial isn't really science based. As noted in my response to stevc, even many who attempt to refute ID are stuck with some sort of origin dilemma.

If you have a position to claim, then perhaps that could be engaged on as well. However, unless I'm mistaken, it seems like you're more focused on making a claim against something than for anything.