Take the design-proof: "the Nature is more complex than watch, the latter is designed, so the Nature is designed." What is supposed here?
Break this down into a basic logical syllogism (Premise A, Premise B, Conclusion):
Premise A: If something in nature is more complex than a watch, it is designed
Premise B: There is something in nature more complex than a watch
Conclusion: Therefore, nature is designed
Looking at this 'design-proof', I cant see how either of the premises or the conclusion are logically valid. Premise A has not been demonstrated, Premise B depends on how you define/measure complexity and the conclusion is invalid as it come from unsubstantiated premises.
For this to be valid, you need to demonstrate that
1. Something in nature is more complex that a watch
2. If something is more complex than a watch it could only be designed
For point 1, you'd need a functional definition of complexity that can be objectively applied. This would be doubly difficult, as you are comparing things that may or may not be naturally occurring, with things that we know are definitely not naturally occurring.
For point 2, you need to conclusively demonstrate two claims: That particular levels of complexity are impossible in nature. And that once that level of complexity is exceeded, the only answer is design.
Once you've demonstrated these, then you can make a conclusion of design in nature, or that nature is designed.
