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

[Ravenshire]

That's nice, but I wasn't looking for an explanation of how cells work. What's you're evidence that it was designed verses evolved.

Yeah, it is nice. It's very nice. I don't get why to the atheist the null hypothesis is that it evolved. I think our first instinct ought to be design, and the alternate hypothesis (the one you test) should be that it evolved. And the evidence that it designed is that every process needed for life is determined by sequential information. Large amounts of it too. It is unlikely that it got there by chance (I calculated the odds of just one 100 amino acid long protein forming randomly a few pages ago, and it was mathematically impossible). There appears to be no inherent need for them to orient themselves into a functional sequence. So it's not necessity. What are you left with? You can say I don't know and hold out for a better answer, but don't tell me that there is more evidence that it happened without a designer. So far, a designer is the ONLY known cause that is capable of producing that much sequential information. Why do you think it happened without a designer?

Evolution isn't the null hypothesis. It's the theory that has been built from Darwin's original observations for over 150 years. The evidence for evolution and creationism have both been tested rigorously. Guess which theory has survived 150 years of rigorous testing by professional scientists and which one gets debunked by internet message board board posters in less than 150 minutes.

The mathematical impossibility of a modern cell popping up spontaneously isn't going to impress anybody. Hell, it's not even relevant. There are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution with more coming every single day while you and your ilk flail about with arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. All you've got is a gawd of the gaps argument with gaps being closed off daily. So, unless you want to present evidence for your creator and his process, and describe your methodology, all you've got is an ancient book and a bunch of bad arguments.