Yes, I have seen a car being made..
To respond to some of your other comments, when i say that we impose our human created patterns on other things, you are correct that is what science does, but in doing so, to make the case, people must be able to demonstrate
what is being studied. If they cannot, then it is not science, it remains at best a hypothesis until such time as there is a method to make it demonstrable. You appear to be saying that because we can observe ourselves being creators that we can assume that there is a god as creator and you are exactly correct. You can assume, but you cannot demonstrate
this. That is the difference. Assume all you want, you think it is valid. Fair enough, so do i. But i will not put much stock in this until that assumption can be demonstrated.
And even more, science does not make proclamations of truth. It is provisional, forever and always until something new is discovered that overturns the previous theory. The reason for this is precisely that we cannot know all properties and all interactions of those properties. Science, as powerful as it is, is very limited in what it can discover. Its "truths" are mostly practical, probably never getting underneath what is studies to truly understand it (see gravity). I do not view science as a method of getting at "truth" in the grand sense, only in the practical sense..and science is further constrained by what we know about epistemology.
So, yeah, you keep saying essentially the same thing over and over again. New examples illustrating the same thing. I get it. It didn't convince me the first time and more examples of that same type will not either. You could prove evolution wrong and it wouldn't be any more evidence for a god. And yes, i keep repeating myself as well, we are not getting anywhere..so
Lets get to the root of it. I am coming from a Humian point of view. Are you familiar with Hume? Have you read any of his books, specifically An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?
So, though Hume has been challenged about some of his stuff by Kant and others, the essence
(if not particular details) of his argument about epistemology remains unchallenged or at least un-overcome. So, if we are to not be talking at cross-purposes, can you articulate Hume's point of view relative to this topic and then say why you don't hold to it? Because that to me is the crux of this argument. All these great examples of life as design is not going to cut it. It doesn't get at the root of the dissension.
Also, are you familiar with the concept of reification? Can you steel man my argument by explaining to me why reification is important in this argument? You do not have to agree with any conclusions, you don't have to agree with Hume. But at least if you have to argue along that vein, it will show where our disagreement lies. Otherwise you are going to keep giving your wonderful observations of AI and the big bang and evolution which i have no truck with and only hold those things as scientifically provisional anyway. The answer isn't: we can't come up with a better explanation so it must be god. Or the bald ass assertion that things just couldn't have happened which begs the question (see Hume). Articulate what Hume would say to this and you'll better understand my point of view.