Space Shuttle engines and fuel systems, to my knowlege, are not living, reproducing organisms. I know you know this, and I know you've been told this, but for some reason you don't seem to understand the difference.
Engineers would laugh at you for suggesting that their work is somehow some way related to biological processes.
As you're fond of saying, "rofl." You laugh too much and learn too little.
That was specifically the point of using their complexity as an example. They aren't living reproducing organisms. They merely are being compared to a portion of the organism specifically geared to reproducing. It would be a miracle enough that the two independant systems would mate up if created at random and blindly and show up on the same universe much less on the same planet. If they mate up and actually worked together, it would be even more incredible.
Engineers would laugh at you for suggesting that their work is somehow some way related to biological processes.
No, they actually would not. They have some level of sense as well and understand that complexity is mirrored all over. Many will admit that their designs are less complex than what is found in biological systems, some will note that they think their designs at least as complex. I know, I've had similar discussions with Engineers in my own family and in facilities I've both worked in and visited. Aircraft engineers love to talk, btw. As do, I assume, most engineers in general. Circuit board designers can teach you a thing or two as well.
As you're fond of saying, "rofl." You laugh too much and learn too little
The latter does not follow from the former. I just happen to find some things funny and don't mind expressing it. I am curious and spend much of my off time trudging through one topic or another - learning new things. Your opinion on a subject you are unfamiliar with doesn't much sway me. You are trying to buy believability of HighSchool students with your pile of theories. They ain't buying it. There are guys out there with degrees out the wazoo that not only disagree with evolution; but, are disagreeing because of what they have observed in science. This tells us that it's not a matter of a level of learning that is involved. It the learning level didn't solve it for guys with Phds who got them legitimately. So your argument fails. Which puts you back in the position of dealing with the central argument - not tangents intended to distract.