The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

So have you found that scientific proof that your god was involved yet, or are you still just attempting to tear down everyone else to your level?

I have two choices, one is to believe that amazingly complex living systems created themselves via random activity, or that each of these systems has a unique design from an external creative source. You believe that the odds of the former are acceptable and I believe the odds are far better for the latter.

You continue to dodge the question, which isn't surprising by this point, but you also aren't able to cover for your critical weak spot: there are more than two choices. In the scenario you describe- and apparently I'm just going to have to go with the fact that you have no positive evidence, since if you did you'd have presented it by now- then the odds don't matter at all. In the absence of positive evidence for a position, even if you don't like the odds for a falsely dichotomous alternative (and I'll get into why that is something you've chosen ignorantly in a moment) then the position is "I don't know," not "I know it's god." Assuming that your statements are absolutely correct, and that you aren't actually baselessly dismissing one option (you are, but we'll get there next) then what you have, by your own evasive admission, two positions with zero evidence behind them. You don't then get to assign the other alternative a positive value without evidence simply because you like it better: your god is not some default position. In the absence of evidence for any other alternative, you still don't have anything to rationally accept the god claim with.

Moreover, I'd very much like to know how you determined your "odds" in this case, considering you've failed to present any evidence at all for your god (meaning you don't have anything with which to derive a positive probability for your god) and are dismissing mountains of peer reviewed scientific data for abiogenesis based solely on an argument from ignorance ("you can't explain X, therefore your position can't be true"). So, you're using a fallacy to ignore the presence of things that actually lend a positive probability to a position, while assuming a positive probability for a position that has nothing to indicate that it even exists, with no justification at all. It's like you don't even know what odds are, it's just a rhetorical device to you without any connection to any of the methods for deriving a probability that actually exist. You theists, you do this all the time, talking about probabilities and possibilities, without ever even attempting to demonstrate the math that led you to those probabilities in the first place. You just want us to accept it by fiat, as if there aren't any real ways to determine probabilities other than baseless gut feelings.

Sorry, not gonna happen.

Oh, by the way? How did you determine there were only two possibilities? Can you even tell me how you've ruled out an unknown alternative? Or panspermia? Multiverse theory? Literally anything else, other than the one possibility you've presupposed, and the other that you've simply asserted without justification, based solely on your own ignorance and incredulity, is impossible? Just because you won't consider anything else, doesn't mean there are only two options, even if your fiat nothing were actually a rational argument.