DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Joods]

You haven't shown how it proves design at all. You've just asserted your incredulity at the idea of DNA coming about without a designer.

You don't have an argument. What you have is this:

DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.

The bolded part is your claim. Where's your evidence of it?

And we've already spoken about the beginning of our cosmos not necessarily being the beginning of our universe, did you forget already?

You can't just say 'information in DNA is the proof' and be convincing. You have to explain WHY it's the proof. And you never even try, you're just dumbfounded that we don't take your world for it and trot out another link on how amazingly complicated DNA is.

---

But that super-intelligence isn't advanced enough to require design, am I right?

---

By a community that you've said yourself is majority theist. I don't find that plausible.

---

I appreciate that. I don't agree that as best we know the universe came from nothing at all, but I could be wrong. There are plausible hypotheses on how it could have come from nearly nothing (quantum foam, which may not be able to not exist), so there's that.

---

When you bring up over and over how outnumbered you are, it REALLY sounds like whining.

One of the ways you tell something is true is if you can make an argument for it that is both sound and valid. That's not enough by itself for existential claims, you need evidence too (you can't just logic something into existence), but it's reasonable to ask that if something is actually true, it shouldn't be self-contradictory or contrary to observed reality and it should be able to stand up to reasonable skeptical scrutiny.

---

As I said, the information comes from the reproductive environment. We can infer a lot about an organisms reproductive environment from its DNA because organisms adapt to their environment by the DNA of the most successful being selected for.

You accept 'microevolutionary adaptations', right? You get that they're adapting to their environment because variations that are more successful are preserved, right? That's how information about the environment gets into the genome.

And 'it must come from a super intelligence' is a claim that you haven't supported, so I am justified in dismissing that unsupported out of hand. If you don't give me a reason to take you seriously, why should I?

---

But they're in the majority, right? There are more of them than there are mean old atheist scientists. Are theistic scientists particularly cowardly for some reason?

---

But it's fine when you call them 'retarded people', eh?

---

Demographic trends are pretty reliable. But okay, WOULD you still think so IF Muslims outnumber Christians in a few decades?

---

Can you name one 'true democracy' that is a country that actually exists today?

---

The 'why' part. As in 'why does the information inside DNA have to come from a mind?' Your arguments seem to add up to 'it just does, that's why!'

bold mine. 

You contradict yourself. Do you even pay attention to what you post? You do realize that the United States Government IS a Democratic government, right? 

Do you also understand that Hillary Clinton won the majority vote? Our deeply flawed Electoral College made sure to fuck that up by giving the presidency to Trumptard, so no - the person who won the majority of the votes cast, didn't get to be in office.

The US government type is a constitutional republic.  

Yes, I realize Hilary lost the electoral vote but won the majority vote.

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

bold mine.
Wrong. Learn to read.

The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic (a federation of states with a Representative Democracy). Despite a strong democratic tradition, the U.S. is not a “Direct Democracy“ (where people vote on laws directly*).[1][2][3][4]

Stop quoting numerous other people if you are just going to respond to one person's post. 

And I wasn't making fun of people with intellectual disabilities. Given that I'm a mother of such a person, I know better. 
You however, are spinning the words of others and ironically accusing us of doing that exact thing.