Is there a legitimate argument for design?

And you show an appalling ignorance of the chemistry of DNA.If you can't bring your high school knowledge of DNA to bear on the subject, I suggest you go back and finish high school before you come to the 'big boys' discussion.Again, does anyone have anything INTELLIGENT to say about the origin of the DNA molecule?
I'll give you all a hint: it has to do with complex, specified information. Or you can call it a RECIPE if you want. Just bring your grey matter to bear on the subject PLEASE!

So get on with the debunking. So far you have simply maintained your assertions...
Unless, of course, you're only stating your preference in metaphors?
If so, that explains the lack of reasoned argument. OPINIONS don't need evidence.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

first use peek mode to copy quotes that you want to quote it looks nicer Well its not a blueprint and it is more of an automaton or lets say nano-botA blueprint would mean that it is a design plan its not i dont see any paper and in in dna do you? Its not even coded instructions because it would not make any sense if it is a coded instruction who is reading it? Are you implying a cell has the capacity to read the instruction then decide what to do?DNA is a molecule and it behaves in accordance to the laws of chemistry.Sure it is a verry complex molecule you could even call it a nano-bot (ie molecular machine). but thats itProteins are made by stuff around the DNA chemically reacting with the DNA molecule.There are no little gremlins looking at the DNA molecule saying aha this part here says the nose should be this shape lets go to work.Its like when oxygen meets iron to produce rust, they dont go well my information says we should bind ourselves together to make rust and then they do it. It just happens because of chemical reactions do to their properties iron being "wanting" to give a way electrons and oxygen "wanting" them so they form rust.Its the same for DNA all chemical reactions just a bit more complicated.

Seriously, have you even taken a General Chemistry course? The absurdity of ridiculing someone's discussion of science by posting something even more infantile and unscientific is beyond belief.

Others here are doing a marvelous job already, and you are ignoring their points. I have no reason to believe I'd be any more successful than they would. You are a troll.

Oooo, I hit a soft spot. I didn't think you had anything intelligent to say about my argument for design...this just proves it.Any more 'debunkings'?

Thanks for that, I needed a good chuckle.Edited by subbie, : Tyop

The Black Knight always cracks jokes after you chop off his legs.He'll ignore a few more days' worth of refutations, then declare victory.

Now we're getting warmer... yes, the arrangement of nucleotides on DNA/RNA molecules IS a design plan for the organism. It is a 'recipe' written in base-4 digital code (because of the 4 possible bases in each position, as opposed to binary, which has only 2). Like any recipe, this one had to have an intelligent source, as it was 'written' some time BEFORE life started. Evolution could not have an effect until life began as a whole phenomenon.
Oh, and a the 'blueprint' is a different kind; not one to be read by humans, so it doesn't require paper. That's exactly true. You are getting to the point. Now the next question:
How did the DNA/RNA NANOBOT come to be 'constructed' so that it could CONTAIN, TRANSMIT AND INTERPRET the instructions to make functional proteins necessary for an organism to live?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

By all means, go ahead and school me in the Chemistry of DNA, if you can. So far you're just huffing and puffing.Still waiting for an INTELLIGENT, reasoned response to my main argument for design; the existence of a RECIPE embedded in DNA/RNA that requires a cause.

Not bothering with you. You are obviously an idiot if you think "full of code" and just saying "complex specified information" are anything that needs a rebuttal. I don't believe you are capable of understanding chemistry, and your inability to discuss your position in meaningful terms while mocking others who are trying to do so shows it.There is no meaningful way to talk about DNA without talking about chemistry, yet you PRATT on with stuff we've heard and discussed here 100s of time as though it is all new. Offline we refer to that as being a dumbass, but I'm too polite to do that here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I admire your restraint, sir.

You have that backwards. You're the one making the positive claim that the DNA molecule is unique, so you're the one who's required to substantiate it. Every chemical compound is unique in its own way but if you think DNA is "more unique" than water, for example, if you think it has some "special" chemistry, you need to show us your evidence for that. Again, you'd have to show how the chemistry is unique. What I said was, "It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry." Message 160 This is a science-oriented forum and we appreciate rigor, especially when it comes to quotes. I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain.

Somebody already did that by pointing out that there is also a recipe for salt crystals embedded in Na and Cl. You need to show how that recipe is fundamentally different from the recipe in DNA.

You berate people for just writing assertions and you ask people to cite their sources when they tell you something, and then you go and crap out a bunch of unsupported assertions.And then you have the gall to ask us to provide some intelligent comments.Tsk tsk.You have no idea what you are talking about with DNA. Its just chemistry. There is no code. There is no need for intelligence to design it.Did you see my post about growing salt crystals? Its just chemistry.