2. Although we as humans have made fantastic progress is medicine, we are still only tinkering. Until we can CREATE life from the basic elements I remain unconvinced that we can ever do it.

On its own, this is perfectly fine. I too am unconvinced that “we” can ever ever create life from the basic elements. However this is not a weak argument for or against atheism. It is irrelevant to the debate - there are many things humans can not do, none of which point towards the existence of a creator.

Statements like this - out of context “truisms” - are largely (IMHO) drivel.

3. The human state of consciousness, how a body gets life in it cannot be reproduced by humans ‘artificially’.
I feel that if I say I am an atheist then I it would be naive

Again, point 3 carries as massive “so what.” It doesn’t lead to the conclusion stated and adds nothing to the debate. The fact humans are unable to create artificial conciousness is another irrelevant “truism.”

Also, as an aside, I am not a big fan of Dawkins’ scale of atheism. People believe something or they dont, at best the scale describes someone’s relationship with a particular deity. Every atheist I know accepts that if sufficient evidence is produced then they will accept what ever deity is being proven exists, anything else ventures into the realm of religious belief.

The two points you gloss over that are made by the engineer from Cardiff are actually perfectly reasonable, and not dribble at all. Abiogenesis and “the hard problem” (consciousness) are, as yet, not explained by science, which is a perfectly good reason not to be a “7″, although one might still reasonably be a 6 or a 6 point something, as I am.

I will keep an eye out for similar bouts of theistic madness in the future.

Answer usually comes there none. Bluster aplenty.

Good blog