The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

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.

Odds always matter. If the chances of something happening are extremely remote, why would that not matter?

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.

There is a stack of evidence that life is the product of design. I can't do anything about a person's choice to ignore it or deny that it exists. If I walk down the street and find a wristwatch on the ground, I don't assume it evolved by itself. I examine it and find evidence of organized design and conclude that it has a designer. If the watch had no markings, how could I prove the existence of the designer? I couldn't. Does that mean I have to take the position that the watch has no designer? That would be illogical.

So it is the existence of design that proves the existence of a designer. 

I will answer the other parts of your post shortly - I have to log off.