I've heard that when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole holding a shovel, the best policy is to stop digging. But you haven't stopped yet so...

That text wall about testicles makes zero sense. You start off by claiming that it's a stupid design. Which supposedly proves that it evolved instead of being created.

Then you continue by explaining in detail why a different placement wouldn't work because it would reduce reproductive fitness. Unfortunately you actually have no idea what you're talking about, you say your best guess is that hardy sperm that could survive in the rib cage would either (1) take too much energy or (2) be too slow to produce. That's just complete speculation, you actually have no idea. But you defend the existing design by claiming any other design would hurt reproductive fitness and would therefore be eliminated by the process of natural selection.

So which is it? Your entire point was that the current placement is a design flaw that proves it wasn't intelligently designed. You can't simultaneously argue that it's a stupid design that proves evolution occurred, but also the most reproductively ideal design possible. If it's a stupid design, propose a better one. If you can't, I don't see any alternative to the conclusion that it was designed by someone more intelligent than yourself.

The problem is, you're trying to play both sides of the fence. You want to use so-called "design flaws" to "prove" no intelligent design. But you know full well that almost everything in nature is elegantly and functionally designed almost to the point of perfection. So you also have to leave the door open to the argument that evolution can produce ideal and optimally fit outcomes. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument, and I see right through it.

I'm fully aware of how birds lost their ability to fly and mole rats their ability to see. Again, I'm not sure how you think a loss of function is going to convince me of the power of evolution. The problem for you is, that's all we observe happening today; loss of previous function and information. We don't see the reverse. If you could point to a bird that had no wings and developed wings and the ability to fly over time, that would be relevant. This isn't. It's like arguing that the fact that some shingles blew off your house during a hurricane proves that your house was built by random gusts of wind blowing the structure into place. It's ludicrous. Increasing entropy is the exact opposite of what we would see if evolution was in fact responsible for the order we see in living organisms.

I fully agree that evolution does not create something new out of nothing. Gradually adapting what it already has begs the question of where that "what it already has" came from. If evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, it seems pretty ludicrous to keep defending it given the complete lack of alignment with the real world.

You keep dodging the question of how evolution does all the things you claim it does. How does it change the DNA? A human has 20-25,000 genes and over 3 billion DNA base pairs. How does evolution go from a single cell organism or whatever you think came first somehow, to that? How do the changes in the DNA happen? If the changes don't happen randomly by coincidence, what's' the mechanism?

One piece of evidence of God's existence outside our reality is His Word, in which He gives us some specific information about His nature and activities. Since the other information He gave has proven to be accurate, reliable and useful in understanding the world, it's logical to conclude that the information about His existence is also accurate.