So your an Athiest

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Oh...BLAAAAM, you got us! Argue from history, specifically on what does not apply because it applies only to the products of intelligence which have been produced in the top-down fashion - oh, how can any science believer argue with that? Hmmm...well, there's the fact that observed life forms show absolutely no evidence of top-down design!

AAA, you really do have a soul, which is just another word to combine "mind", the poetic "heart", and more importantly "character", and this thread is not good for it because there is no arguable virtue recognized among communities of the human animal in dishonesty. You wander only further from honesty, crossing the line over to insult and outright lies the more you attempt to support unsupportable ideas in your attempt to avoid dealing with the truth which scares you (although in truth what you're doing now is about as scary as it gets).

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. 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. 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. 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. Thanks for putting up with my thoughts, and please look at the scientific evidence objectively and keep an open mind. I will try to do the same.

You contradict yourself here by saying you don't "know" we are a product of intelligence, while insisting that a design exists. You can't have it both ways - if there is a design, then there must be an intelligence behind it! The problem is that there really is no evidence for a design, and the world will probably never see such evidence, no matter how you insist there is. Mix certain elements and compounds together, and the result can have properties unlike any of the components that went into it. We don't know precisely why this happens, but scientists don't jump to conclusions - this is not evidence of design, nor is the far greater complexity of form which evolved and eventually became self-aware over 4.5 billion years. There is no direct evidence that it started by accident, but the fossil record makes it very clear that it began much simpler than you can imagine, and simple enough that it probably was an accident of physical chemistry. This would set up the machine that went on ticking away, producing new information each time another accident occured and continued onward. It's the simplest explanation, which is usually the best one.

What a complicated existence you theists lead, when you have something to prove which you should know you never will. What can be asserted without evidence really can be dismissed without evidence!