Is there a legitimate argument for design?

dadman, did you come back yet? I want to hear more from you. Looks like I'm one of the few people here that agrees with you lol.

Yes, there is a legitimate argument for design.

I think the only argument ID needs (though the concept has many) is in the digital code built into the DNA/RNA.

The existence of this code is the downfall of abiogenesis, in my opinion.

ok, dadman, I can't say I agree with this:
" it is now scientifically proven that all life is triune..."

Sorry, I assumed the argument for the specified, precision code that is found in the DNA/RNA of even the simplest forms of life was already covered.

How can you guys honestly account for that happening in a completely non-intelligent way? There's more software packed into the nucleus of a cell than, well, I don't know. But lots.

(sorry, having troubles posting...)

Edited by Ed67, : Accidental double post

"Please present the data."

I thought, at this stage of the game, that you would have granted this as common knowledge.

How many base-pair combinations are there in all the DNA in one single cell?

Well, how long is the 'character string' (the DNA in a nucleus straightened out and put in a line)? Surely someone on this thread remembers about how long scientists say the DNA molecule is...

So, how many digital 'signals' can be sent in the DNA molecules of a cell?
Well, we'd have to know how many signals can be stored per unit length. But let me give you a clue; they're SMALLER than microscopic.

So, there's the 'data' that supports my claim that there is "LOTS" of specified information stored in the DNA molecules.

As for your comment:
"At least the scientists presented peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.", ok I'm too lazy to read through this thread, but we'll see about that.
This is a cool forum, guys, I'm glad I found it. But I see it's going to take a lot more work than I'm used to so bear with me...btw, what's with the drama queen? lol.

Edited by Ed67, : single wording change

Essentially, Ringo, yes. The 'ink' is the four bases. The sequence of each of the bases in the DNA helix is a digital signal sent in a base-4 numerical system.

The amount of information stored in this system is staggering, as we all, being scientifically literate, know.

quote:

---

What is needed is not an argument for the code, but an argument for an invisible man making the DNA by magic. This is where creationists seem to fall down.

---

We need to argue that the best explanation to be inferred from the commonly available evidence is that some intelligent source was involved in designing the SEQUENCE of bases on the DNA code, which is the hardest part of building life, and thus would be reasonably responsible for arranging the CHEMISTRY for all the initial conditions of life.

Complaining that we don't know the identity of some 'little man' and the nature of his 'magic' is a red herring and you should have gotten over using that argument in grade school.

Thanks for your help, again, Razd. I will incorporate the markups when I am ready to.

As for your 'recommended reading' lists, thanks, but I know those threads are there. I'm on this thread right now, and prefer to stick to the topic.

"The amount of information stored in the Rocky Mountains is staggering."
Ok. I have the impression this concept of "information" has been discussed thoroughly already. Are we going to start again?

One thing to think about:
How many Rocky Mountain ranges would be required to make the instruction set contained in DNA that can build an organism?

But the four bases are the DNA molecule. The "code" is nothing more than the molecule itself. A water molecule carries information too, in the same way, only less of it. It's just a molecule.

If you're going to play dumb then there's no use having a discussion with you.

The 'code' is the SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENT of bases along the DNA molecule. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

DNA does not contain the instruction set to build an organism, so your question is meaningless.

if you say so...but you're going against commonly accepted science.
Would you care to elaborate?

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

I have in fact never used the imaginary argument that you attribute to me, not even in grade school.

Didn't they teach you about honesty in kindergarten?

well Razd, your posts are always amusing, I'll give you that.

I just choose not to respond to silly assertions and baseless arguments. I hope you are not offended, but I'm waiting for anyone here to say anything INTELLEGENT about the origin of the blueprints found in the DNA molecule.

It in fact does NOT proscribe every single detail of what an organism is going to look like and does not contain detailed instructions about how to create an organism.

So, you are introducing a new concept. Please elaborate; what grounds do you have for your statement?