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

[AAA]

Sequential information in cells and molecular mediums that allow information to be transferred between molecules seem like designed features. It can easily be interpreted as evidence of design, especially when we see intelligently created technologies that resemble it, yet we never see non-living systems mimic it.

I couldn't remember why I stopped debating about a year ago. Now I remember. This is painful.  
Here's how this sounds: This thingy right here works wonderfully in a complex manner that I don't understand. Since I don't understand it, I say god did it.

Some other person comes around and you tell her of your findings. She just heard of another god, and thinks it must be that other one. Now we have two possible responsible parties.

Some other dude comes along and asks what the hell is going on. You explain that this thingy is very mechanical and couldn't possible happen if it weren't for a god. This dude heard of yet another god, and it most certainly had to be that god the one that did it.

That's how this sounds. And this discussion has been going on between atheists and creationists for a very long time. I don't understand how creationists can continue to use the unexplained as evidence. I really don't understand. "This is complex, therefore god," is not evidence. How is this still a thing?

For the 6516516519851654196519861698th time, it is not "It is too complex to understand, therefore God", it is "we do understand it well. It is unbelievably efficient, intricate, complex, and dependent on preexisting information. Only the explanation of designer has the ability to explain it so far." It is not based on what we don't know, it is what we DO know.