In short, the argument just says that because we exist in these particular circumstances, then some being must be responsible for that. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

Even if we accept that every earthly miracle in the Bible happened, such as seas parting, water being turned to wine, and dozens or hundreds of people being brought back to life, that still doesn't mean that one guy's explanation is worth considering. Further, we couldn't examine his claim in any useful way since it says that the cause is supernatural.

I must have watched a different trailer than you guys. That looks cool as shit!

The comment seems to be saying that men and women are in leagues, otherwise only women could be out of each other's league. Settling for someone that might be considered "not in her league" doesn't mean that she didn't have reasons for doing so, but even if she didn't have any reason, or even if she had bad reasons, there's nothing sexist about that statement. The same reasoning could apply to men. There's nothing sexist at all in the comment.

How is that comment sexist?

That lady is cool as a cucumber while the water level is at her mouth. Jeez.

Of all the cool shit they could have done with that, they made made ugly patterns that blink.

Why?

Cars will still have to be insured since accidents can still happen, but there will be many fewer accidents. Insurance companies will make shitloads of money because they won't be paying out nearly as much. It wouldn't surprise me to see them offer significant discounts to anyone with a self driving car.

No, again, that's not at all what they did. They protested by dancing and were beaten up for it. There's no need for an analogy. It's not hard to understand. They did something that was right, some other people did something that was wrong, and you don't give a shit.

That's not really the same as fighting for you rights, is it?

I guess people who don't have rights shouldn't fight for them.

It can't. At best, it can just direct the heat a bit.

DNA is not a language. The word language implies that someone created it, but we haven't proven that. DNA contains molecules that do certain things. Those molecules could be interpreted as information, but so could any other matter, such as the rings of a tree. Just because DNA works a certain way doesn't mean that we get to slap any label we want on it.

How would I tell the difference between a universe that is designed, and one that wasn't? Just like I tell that anything else was designed. I compare the two. Do you have a designed universe for me to compare this one to?

If it's true that separate people can design things which are similar, then we're done. Your point is invalid. Your analogy about 747s is irrelevant, but even if it wasn't, it still isn't an accurate analogy since two 747s are the exact same design. We're talking about similar designs, and there are many, many airplanes that have a design that's similar to a 747.

Evolution, though, isn't a designer. It's just a word we use to describe a process. That process results in some life looking similar to other life, which isn't surprising considering that many of the environments that have life are similar.

Your assertion about the hummingbird wing being independently developed straining credulity and probability is just a bare assertion. Similar things have happened many times. I don't understand why it's surprising that species in a similar environment would development similar solutions to similar problems. To say that they were designed by a force that you don't understand isn't reasonable. It's not even an explanation.