DoubtingThomas:
Well you described it as 'tedios', and refused to answer my question, on which an intelligent conversation hinged.
Your ‘question’ was rhetorical nonsense based on a false premise. Your use of loaded terms like ‘accident’ does not indicate a desire for intelligent conversation at all. Just the typical creationist cliches. Calling an alternative to your view an ‘accident’ is not evidence of your position, and posing it as the only alternative is a false dichotomy.
You still have not provided any justification for your claim to “know” that any god exists (or even what a god is), let alone the Christian god. Ultimately, you will try to claim an infinite regress requiring some initial sentient ‘creator’ that doesn’t require a creator itself, which is special pleading.
Back in reality, we know that organic compounds come from simpler non-living compounds without any need for a magical infinitely complex entity that contradicts your own premise.