CON "I don't know" vs PRO "God did it"

Thank you for taking the time to post an argument. Thank you also for proving my point with ironic precision. Your first argument: 'The argument from design' starts with 'just look around' and jumps straight into 'DNA is to complicated, Therefore God did it. ' This argument has been made for centuries and for centuries about everything from disease to the existence of the atom and it has been pushed back over and over. The more we learn the smaller God gets, The less likely his existence. When we understand DNA better over the next few years we will undoubtedly find new horizons to reach for and your ever shrinking God will be shoehorned into this tinier home. When people built automobiles and discussed the possibility of travel at 60 MPH there were discussions of this being too fast for the flesh on our faces to withstand. Our common sense is common ignorance mislabeled. The only science creationists have, They have stolen from actual science and bent it to fit their cause. Your second argument (Evolution? ) is not labeled as such but I am glad to point out your fallacy. Your evolution argument is a straw man. Learning the actual evolution of these two fish would probably take you a few hours, But why bother when you can just make it up (or more likely take it from some apologist web site) and say 'see how silly that is? ' God did it! As you have presented it, Yes it is a silly idea, Luckily your post has NOTHING to do with evolution. Your third argument (labeled as the second) could not prove more clearly that YOU are incapable of saying "I don't know". Newtons laws of physics were AMAZING for their day. Their day passed with Einstein. This is another straw man. It is in fact, Almost too embarrassing to respond to. I hope you will take this light rebuke and not push this nonsense again. Your Fourth argument (labeled as the first third) is just a word salad with some sciencey words thrown it. The Big Bang is by definition something we do not know. The best ideas we have for the beginning of the universe are based of probabilities since we can only study it from where and when we are now. We don't know does not equal GOD DID IT. ' Your fifth arguement (labeled as the second third) is the Kalam Cosmological Argument with some William Lang Craig tacked on the end. Better men than me have already tackled this nonsense again and again. P1 everything that exists has a cause of existence. (How do you know this to be true? I do not know this and I argue no one does. ) P2 Because the universe exists, It must have a cause of existence. (See P1) P3 Because nothing cannot produce something, That cause must be an outside force. (No one claims something from nothing except theists when they are building their staw men) P4 That outside force is God. (Really? You have clumsily gotten only to 'something', Then you are just positing God. ) How do you know the outside force is not two mice using the Earth as a computer to determine the question of life, The universe and everything? There is not less proof for this assertion than there is for yours. Your hope that I would find you scientific, I must assert, Is at this point headed for the rocks with no lights and a heavy fog. You could not have realized the point of the post any more beautifully. The arrogance of the assumptions you make in a world where the refutations of your arguments are at your fingertips is astounding. Have you really never heard these refuted before? Do you care what is or is not true?