Is there a legitimate argument for design?

Lithium can be a bit reactive, so perhaps we should show concern when handling Lithium, but hardly scared.Perhaps our new contributor is referring to Tritium (3H) instead. It does decay and produce high energy photons that could cause harm if Tritium is ingested, but not exactly the spookiest or most energetic of radioactive elements.

Perhaps dadman is following the advice of one of our previous Presidents.

Every single chemical and physical state has information. Finding information is not a way to distinguish life from non-life.

Here's a ferocious Dino!!

Can you show us where the code is in this picture?

I don't see a code. Can you please describe it for me?

I want to hear it from you. What makes it a code? For example . . ."Genomes contain both a genetic code specifying amino acids and a regulatory code specifying transcription factor (TF) recognition sequences. We used genomic deoxyribonuclease I footprinting to map nucleotide resolution TF occupancy across the human exome in 81 diverse cell types. We found that ~15% of human codons are dual-use codons (duons) that simultaneously specify both amino acids and TF recognition sites. "How is it specified?

How is that any different than the code that is integrated into oxygen and hydrogen to make water?

Huh? What does sexual reproduction have to do with anti-bodies and viral resistance? Where is the evidence and testable mechanisms needed to logically include a designer in a scientific theory?Perhaps you should read up on cosmic teapots:
Russell's teapot - Wikipedia Begging the quesiton. First, show that natural selection has intelligence. The same type of intelligence that fluids use to put the hotter fluids on top of the colder fluids.

That's an easy one: the nested hierarchy.The pattern of shared and derived characteristics in complex life screams evolution and blind inheritance. A designer would be free to swap and mix design units as he see fits. Therefore, with design we expect there to be a lack of a nested hierarchy, and this is true for human designs. For example, automobiles and computers do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Artwork even by the same artist does not fall into a nested hierarchy. The observation of a nested hierarchy is smoking gun evidence of evolution, and contrary to everything we would expect from a intelligent design process.

It started with your opinion that there is sophisticated design.I think it is much more fruitful to look at the objective morphological and genetic data to see if the pattern of shared and derived features matches what we would expect to see from design and evolution. What do you think?

You can't ask someone to point to bad design, and then produce an excuse of why no one is allowed to judge designs.

Reminds me of one of my favoritie quotes. I think I saw it first here at EvC, so credit goes to somebody for passing along this gem."[They say] "We do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it." You poor fools! God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so." William Of Conches

What you are arguing for is a design argument where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution.I consider this to be a dishonest argument. You are essentially saying that the best evidence for intelligent design is the complete lack of evidence for intelligent design.Here are the facts. If evolution is true we would expect to see a nested hierarchy for independent phylogenies. That is exactly what we observe. All of the evidence is consistent with what we would expect from evolution. So how can this be evidence for design?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The tell us what the distribution of shared and derived features should look like if ID is true, and why. Then the designer is irrelevant and superfluous to the actual development of species. So much for ID. If that is not what you are saying, then tell us how we can differentiate ID from evolution where it concerns the distribution of shared and derived characteristics. If you can't show us how the two are different, then you have tacitly conceded the point. Once again, you are given the chance to unmuddy the waters, and you just muddy them further. You still can't separate ID and evolution.