I say this. Did you read the thread Evidence To Be Seen?
I post scientific evidence and you reply with an irrelevant quote. Willfully ignorant, you are.
I read your thread actually and despite how much you think it’s the final nail in the coffin for atheism, it’s not. You started the thread with already shifting responsibility from yourself by saying you are not required to prove that God exists. You are also misusing the argument fallacy of appealing to ignorance by assuming that an atheist would assume there is no God just because you cannot prove it. This is obnoxious as I will simply say…”you have no evidence in the end because you failed to prove God” rather than “Since you could not provide evidence, God doesn’t exist.”
You also mention how atheists move the goal posts whilst your entire thread is full of doing that exact thing.
Getting an atheist to a point of being speechless does not mean that you somehow got an atheist to somehow start believing that there is a god. The reason someone like me would be speechless is because I simply wouldn’t have an answer to a particular question due to my ignorance of the universe which is perfectly natural. At that point all I can do is honestly answer with “I don’t know.” However that is still very different from a Christian because a Christian never says they don’t know whether there’s a god or not, they are instead 100% asserting that there is one. There is no room for being wrong and since there is no room for a Christian to be wrong about God existing, then no amount of evidence could convince them otherwise.
In the debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham (the same guy you posted a video of), Bill Nye said he would change his mind at the slightest bit of evidence. However when Bill asked the same of Ken, Ken said that there was nothing, absolutely nothing that would change his mind about there not being a God. An agnostic atheist like me would be open to the possibility of being wrong whereas someone like you could never be.
Now as far as the scientific evidence you were providing suggesting a designer based off intelligent design, there is not a single shred of humility, or at least a handful of caveats to the intelligent design argument. I acknowledge there is complexity to existence and a certain order, but there are also counterarguments to it.
Your thread is ultimately religion cloaked in science involving a lot of “god of the gaps”. You said that a book or writing presupposes the existence of a writer. However, that’s a bad analogy because both a book and its writer exist within the same universe. God on the other hand, is transcendent. The more you are defining God, the more you are refuting the existence of God because God by definition cannot be defined due to being outside of space and time.