The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

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

Because if you happen upon any given phenomena, crying "that's so improbable!" doesn't actually make the phenomena not be happening. The odds don't exert any influence over events that have already occurred. You pointing out the improbability of an event will not cause that event to cease to exist: if the evidence for a given conclusion points one way, then that is where your conclusion should lie, no matter how improbable. Did you forget that "improbable" is still a positive probability? We live in a vast universe: there is enough chance for every improbable thing to happen.

... Not that you've bothered to demonstrate how you determined the odds in this case, anyway. You've made a claim that you seem content to provide no justification for, like you somehow suspect we'll just take your unqualified assertion as fact. Can you actually justify your conclusion?

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.

You would need to present some first, rather than just insinuating that I'd unreasonably reject it out of hand. Surprisingly, your passive aggressive well poisoning does not count as evidence of your god.

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.

So I asked you for positive evidence of design, and you respond with "I found evidence of design." That's what you think, not why you think it. Present this evidence, don't just demand that it exists.

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.

But again, you've not presented any indications of design. Just saying they exist isn't sufficient: point some out specifically. So far you've shown yourself to be shockingly ignorant of evolution and even basic science: consider for a moment that what you find to be design has a perfectly natural, demonstrable explanation, that you're simply not privy to... because you won't look into it before you come to a conclusion about it. Every time one of you guys blusters in with an example of design, it turns out to have a scientific answer. Sometimes, that even happens in court. You won't have anything new, but then, we won't know until you actually present some evidence, rather than just repeating that you have it.

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

So what evidence led you to conclude the existence of design? You're being remarkably evasive on this point: don't you have any?