What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[AAA]

No, actually I don't need to put forward an alternative in order to reject an explanation that doesn't hold up. I don't have to accept an inadequate cause just because it is the only choice. I can rather say I don't know. Better yet, I can use the cause that is adequate: designer. I don't have to prove the inability of gradual processes leading to thousands of specified nucleotides. That is the null hypothesis which we assume to be true. We must then try to support the alternative hypothesis (gradual processes are sufficient). That would be like me telling you to prove that God doesn't exist using repeatable and testable data, which we both agree isn't a fair request. Both theories about the past are impossible to investigate using the conventional scientific empiricism which you are talking about.

If your going to posit a designer as an alternative to evolution, you most certainly must supply evidence. It's called the burden of proof and it's on you.

I don't care if you think it was designed. I care that you realize it didn't get there through mutation. I think that evidence for a designer comes from the specific sequence of characters that must be present in order for it to function. It really is information, which only comes from intelligence