YES!!!!!!
The broken watch fallacy!
Haven't seen that one in nearly a long enough time.
...oh, the watch isn't broken! In fact, all the parts are in perfect running order! They're just not "assembled" yet.
But your saying that something way more complex than a watch came into existence and then continued to develop in such a way that resulted in all the living things we observe on earth today? So to satisfy your desire to move from "simple" to "complex" I give you this illustration:
When confronted with the astronomical odds against a living cell forming by chance, some evolutionists feel forced to back away. For example, the authors of Evolution From Space (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) give up, saying: “These issues are too complex to set numbers to.” They add: “There is no way .*.*. in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago. The numbers we calculated above are essentially just as unfaceable for a universal soup as for a terrestrial one.”
Hence, after acknowledging that intelligence must somehow have been involved in bringing life into existence, the authors continue: “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.”
Thus an observer might conclude that a “psychological” barrier is the only plausible explanation as to why most evolutionists cling to a chance origin for life and reject any “design or purpose or directedness,” as Dawkins expressed it.
Indeed, even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say that they do not believe a personal Creator is responsible for the origin of life. In their thinking, intelligence is mandatory, but a Creator is unacceptable. Do you find that contradictory?
....is that complex enough for ya?
