If it would be irrational to say that the human statues in Egypt just formed by themselves from the sand for no reason, why do some people think that it is rational to say that actual humans, which are far more complex, just evolved by themselves from inorganic chemicals?
>b-but the burden of proof lies on the theist
This implies that we should assume atheism, until theism is absolutely proven, which is absurd. Instead we should follow where the evidence naturally leads. We know that paintings, carvings, statues, writings, ect. are evidence of human habitation because they exhibit characteristics that natural processes are unlikely to cause. The information written in a book is best explained by an intelligent agent, rather than the chemical properties of ink or paper. Likewise, the information in the genome, and the complex, intricate machinery that sustains it cannot be explained by the chemical properties of DNA or any organic molecules. After decades of study, there are no laws of nature that can create any kind of self replicating, coded language system. Therefore, an intelligent cause is the best explanation. Aliens do not solve this, because they would be bound by the same laws of logic and nature. Only a supernatural entity that exists outside the laws of nature can explain it.
>but muh evolution
Evolution assumes atheism, and subsequently tries to explain observable facts within an atheistic evolutionary framework (and often falsely claims that such explanations are scientific facts). In order to prove evolution, all alternate explanations of the evidence, (and many exist that are more plausible than their evolutionary explanations) would need to be disproven. To use evolution as evidence for atheism is circular logic.
