No problem percipient.
The rest of that post:
...more readily than the correct ones, therefore this increases the difficulty of life coming about by chance. So these hundreds of amino acids must form these complex strings to form these proteins, and hundreds of proteins must form to create tissues and organisms, etc. The conditions for the first supposed cells weren't as favorable as the Miller experiment contended, either - recent studies show that the early atmosphere was much like the atmosphere today, which would be entirely inhospitable to the creation of life.
Sure, that argument hinges on whether or not God actually exists, but there is more proof FOR him than AGAINST him. I would enjoy seeing somebody attempt to logically disprove the existence of God.
Inserting a tall bunny would be rediculous. First of all, bunnies aren't tall. Heh, just kidding, that's now how i'm gonna argue that point. The pink bunny doesn't have a Bible behind him which is considered historically accurate by the Smithsonian Institute, he doesn't have 2000 years of believers whose lives have been changed, and he hasn't affected the whole world by being resurrected from the dead, as Jesus did.
And would you care to enlighten me about how this guy supposedly dealt with irreducible complexity, or am I to take your word that he did so?