Trying to remove information from the Internet is like trying to remove pee from a swimming pool.

If I were to tell you that this painting suddenly appeared out of nowhere, you'd laugh at me, and you'd be right.  It's a ridiculous notion.  It's obvious that this painting had an artist, a designer if you will.

This painting and subsequent argument were used by creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron on a live NBC debate about the existence of God.  Debating Comfort and Cameron were two representatives from the Rational Response Squad.  Many of the arguments along this line tend to degenerate into arguments about evolution vs. creation.  The painting argument is often used to "debunk" evolution as well.  The RRS responded with the fact that we can look up who painted the painting or who built the building, but we cannot visit God's "universe factory."  I don't feel that was an effective rebuttal, because it only applies to living artists and builders, or those who have available records. 

A better rebuttal would have been to point out the problem with the painting argument is that it presumes that there is no difference between living creatures and non-living, inanimate objects.  A painting cannot reproduce, nor can words written on a beach, nor can a Boeing 747.  Someone had to make these objects because they are non-living.  Life behaves much differently than non-life.  It contains DNA, a crucial element of biochemical evolution.   It replicates this DNA to produce new life.  Evolution is a theory of life, not one of inanimate objects.  That is why the painting argument fails.