You are asserting that because you believe the formation of the universe is unlikely without intelligent intervention, that intelligent intervention must have been involved. This is known as "appeal to ignorance". You are asserting that your lack of an alternative explanation is evidence for the explanation that you are putting forward. This is not a logical method of reasoning. You must provide positive evidence to support your claim in order for your claims to be credible.
No, I am saying that the formation of the universe is IMPOSSIBLE without intelligent intervention.
This is known as "appeal to ignorance".
Really? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough then. We are talking about the FORMation of the universe. From what?
A is from A, B is from B, A and B make AB.
Intelligent intervention forms life.
You are asserting that your lack of an alternative explanation is evidence for the explanation that you are putting forward. This is not a logical method of reasoning.
What? Because I can't explain that some primordial ooze can self-organize, THAT's why I can't claim intelligent intervention? ? ?
Occam's razor is also coming to mind.
You must provide positive evidence to support your claim in order for your claims to be credible.
DNA has information. Cells replicate. Who/What wrote the information? One of many examples.
Are you telling me that YOU have positive evidence to support your claim that order arises from disorder?