Not enough room in DNA

Why are you assuming that complexity makes something look like it has been designed? I see the staggering complexity of the Mandlebrot Set, yet I certainly don't ever think that it was "designed". You seem to be assuming that which you are attempting to demonstrate. Yes, because of the millions of examples we have of laptops being a result of human design, and the complete absence of any examples of laptops arising that have not been designed. This has nothing to do with "complexity".Or are you suggesting that perhaps a much less complex laptop, say one from the early 90s like my old Compaq, wasn't designed because it was substantially less complex that the Vaio on which I am typing this message? Nonsense - we know laptops are designed because we have millions of examples of laptops being designed and no examples of laptops that have not been designed. We have zero examples of any biological system being designed, unless you are again trying to assume that which you are attempting to demonstrate?It appears that there is a distinct lack of valid logic in the arguments you are presenting. Have you any better arguments?

Examples please?

Please do not change the subject. You asked for examples of where Creation.com was wrong and Coyote presented four perfectly laughable examples of idiocy from this site - irrespective of what one thinks of the accuracy of any type of dating, anyone with any knowledge of carbon dating (which includes Coyote, an expert, myself to a much lesser degree, as a physicist, but obviously not you and Creation.com) would recognise these examples are utterly fallacious.Now, as it was you that requested this information regarding Creation.com, perhaps you would be so kind to reply to Coyote on that topic.