DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

 Now, y'see, this is where I have a question or two.

Now... if there is some diety "... Outside the boundaries of this universe.. " then that puts said critter something like 13 odd billion years away from us.

Y'now, the whole  'Outside what we can see/Outside space and time' thing?

So... if said deity is all the way over/back there... How then exactly does it interact with things here and now?

Not at work.

If something can exist outside the boundaries of the universe then that thing does not have to be intelligent it could be a natural thing that could have caused the universe perfectly naturally.

---

Hi there and happy weekend.

If intelligence requires a regression of super intelligence, then I guess that kills the idea of a primordial soup that assumes non-intelligence to intelligence.  If not, how would it have developed intelligence?  It would've needed a superior source.

Intelligence is not required to develop intelligence it was YOUR logic that stated that it did.
What intelligence requires is evolution. It requires interaction and competition, it requires failure of unsuccessful techniques

Even with our programmed AIs we build their intelligence by training and interactions.

So this precludes the possibility of a single superintelligent agency in where ever you picture this thing living.

Yep, because we all know computers make themselves.

The calculators on the shelves in Walmart must've evolved there.  No need for intelligent humans to make an intelligent device.  They'll just appear on their own.

Hey look, over there, a rock.  I bet 5 billion years from now it will be a super rock capable of...uummmm....being a rock!

Can you show me (not hypothesize) one thing going from non-intelligent to having some level of intelligence, without intelligent input from an intelligent source?

---

Hi there and happy weekend.

Thank you!
A happy and relaxing weekend for you too!

If intelligence requires a regression of super intelligence, then I guess that kills the idea of a primordial soup that assumes non-intelligence to intelligence.  If not, how would it have developed intelligence?  It would've needed a superior source.

Did you miss the fact that I was in the IF clause that contained a super-intelligence generating our intelligence?
This IF clause automatically assumed that this primordial soup was not the cause for intelligence, doesn't it?


But, in the primordial soup scenario, intelligence would be a product of evolution. It is possible to find degrees of intelligence in other animals, from dolphins to dogs, to crows, to cats... We humans just happen to be seemingly the top intelligent beings on this planet.

Anyway...

It was sufficient, but corrupted.  Kinda like a computer program getting a virus.  The program may have been fine, but when a virus alters its function, it can become dysfunctional.  In other words, man made a choice to alter that sufficiency.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Of course I think you know what happens next.  They did it anyway.







It was sufficient based on a direct relationship with God.

Yes, I get it... according to the belief, human intelligence can't be self-sufficient.
My question was, how is human intelligence not self-sufficient?

If you can insist necessity in my beliefs, then why can't I insist the same necessity in your beliefs?  I assumed the same thing.  There would be a necessary regress of greater intelligence.  If you insist that is true based on your observations, then why wouldn't it be true as well for the "primordial soup?"

---

Why would entropy do the opposite?   I would suggest it should go back and forth or cycle.

Impressive - you've managed to be ignorant and incoherent at the same time.  Entropy doesn't 'do' anything - it's a quantity, not an active force.


Boru

You limit your thinking, which is why your conclusions are weak.   We were discussing "function" not defining entropy.  Tis why I gave the Carnot Cycle as an example, because it demonstrates "function" but considers entropy two-fold within its system.

If you don't understand what we're talking about and in what context, why make stupid remarks?  Seriously, pull your head out of your behind and think rather than jump the gun.