So your an Athiest

[Esquilax]

This will be my last response on this page, because I'm sick of us arguing in circles and not getting anywhere. I don't know that we were produced by an intelligence, but I think that it is a better explanation for the design (which all cases of design where we know the origin proceeds from intelligence) that we see. 

So, I've only just gotten to this thread, but how exactly did you determine that you see design within biological life? Because when I look at life, with all its redundancies, downright flaws, and issues with obvious resolutions, I don't see design. I see exactly what we would expect if life evolved due to processes that had no concept of the comfort and functionality of the organisms that result, only that they survive.

And frankly, that is a better explanation than intelligence anyway, since it's not only readily demonstrable, it also requires less unjustified assumptions. Why make the additional step of assuming intelligence without positive evidence for one, just because you have things that one might intuitively suspect leads to design?

Until better evidence can reasonably explain a bottom up process that leads to information and increasing complexity, my default position is that the intelligent information had an intelligent designer.

That's called "evolution," it has over a century of peer reviewed scientific consensus and evidence that has only ever confirmed or strengthened it, and explains all those things. Incidentally, how are you defining information?

And you are aware that "until someone provides a better answer I'm going with this one," is an argument from ignorance, yes?

You say that life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design. That is just a misinformed assertion with no basis in the facts. It shows plenty of evidence of design with complex interplay, and you really have to stretch the theory of evolution to account for their interactivity.

Not only is complexity not an indicator of design- intelligent designers strive for simplicity, not a whole bunch of moving parts- but complex interplay is easily encompassed within evolutionary theory: the things that each organism interacts with exist within their environment, they were always a part of the natural selection pressures involved in the evolution of that organism. They interact because they evolved around each other.

Our genome seems to be decreasing in function as time goes on which is more consistent with a top-down design than a bottom up design.

What makes you say that? No, seriously, you've given no reason at all why you think that.