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

[God of Mr. Hanky]

First, the asteroid hasn't hit yet. Alert me, if it does.

Secondly, we don't know - as of yet - that's filling the gaps. You don't know something, so it has to be god. You look for confirmation at your favorite apologist websites and that's about it. That's why I called you a caveman at heart. You simply can't live without having an explanation for something you or anyone else doesn't understand as of yet. And you also are looking rather desperately for your god evidence. You want him to exist, so you bend and shape, till it fits your desired narrative.

A hundred years ago, we understood a lot less than we do today. And in another hundred years, we will understand even more. I'm pretty comfortable with that and don't need a supernatural explanation for something we don't have explained so far.

The cell is more complex than the circuit board on the asteroid. It was an analogy. We don't know how it could have gotten there. There is only ONE cause that is so far sufficient to lead to the phenomena that are observed in the cell. That is intelligence. But this answer is unacceptable, and according to you anyone who reasons this way is a caveman. 

And you called me a caveman because it makes you feel better about yourself. After all, you are truly one of the great thinkers of our time. And I don't necessarily want God to exist. The thought of it is frightening, but what we want to be true doesn't impact what actually is true. You are bending the evidence so you don't see God; so it fits your desired narrative.

You're not really a biology student, you're an artist who uses biology, combining it with far less dignified material to construct what suits his fancy.

On engineering, you know less than a first-year student. He would know the difference between the top-down approach which is true design, and can only be produced by a thinking mind, and the bottom-up approach which is practiced when necessary in programming to build greater systems from those which already function on their own by altering them so that they will work together. For example, an eye cell program would have started out as something different, maybe even something self-contained. Or you may begin this approach with a single existing program, adding a few lines here and there to improve its functionality.

Natural selection isn't the top-down design which you wish it was, it's bottom-up. Even this requires a programmer with a mind to get the desired results with any degree of efficiency, but 4.8 billion years to produce us is no example of that. Suppose you could make it someone's job to take a program which you want to improve, by repeating its code lines all day, every day for 4.8 billion years. In that much time he would make lots of repetitions, and probably make a few errors, maybe? Maybe more than a few, maybe a million times more errors than there are stars in this universe? He may even add a few lines without thinking about it, got tired and duplicated some lines (but again in error, resulting in different code) which he didn't know he had already done! The first time an error proves to be useful is when the task to be repeated will change - from this point on, the original task is of no use, now you pay him to repeat and run-test the modified code indefinitely, which he had produced without putting one single thought into it! The millionth time this happens, our repeated task will have a million changes in it. This would of course grossly oversimplify the workings of natural selection, but it basically represents the extremely unintelligent, actually the trow level of the bottom-up approach which it takes. It really isn't design at all, it just barely even works - which is why it is so grossly imperfect and in many ways utterly nasty.