Is there a legitimate argument for design?

So get on with it. So far you have only made assertions.

Hmm... that was a very richly packed reply. I take exception to each of your 3 points above. So I'd like us to unpack these remarks together and look at them separately(pardon the pun).
(1)I'd like you to cite your source on this point, please, unless it's your opinion.(2)I'd like to see your source on this one, too. This doesn't sound like any water I've seen: (3)What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

Ok, call it what you will. Just get on with it. By all means, debunk my idea of DNA as a 'blueprint'.

Ok, this is your own word so all your gang can agree with it lol.So, do recipes include cooking instructions?

Your point in saying that DNA "does not contain detailed instructions about how to create an organism" is interesting. You are correct.
I recant if I have said that.
What I mean is that DNA contains detailed instructions on how to REPLICATE, or 're-create' an organism. These instructions must have originally come from some cause; they could have come from an intelligent source, as intelligence is known to be sufficient cause for the kind of instructions contained in the 'recipe' of DNA.

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.

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'?

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.

It doesn't look very alive to me...

Sorry for the missing ellipsis. It doesn't change the meaning of the quote. Ok, thanks for asking. Are you aware of the basic course of research that Crick engaged in after finalizing the initial discovery of the double helix?
I have to go hunting for my sources on it, so I'll be a while. I don't want to just go spouting off on my own (nonexistent) authority, but I thought this finding of crick's was quite common knowledge for anyone interested in the history of science.If so, it won't take me long to find a source... bear with me please.

Well, here's the mention of the kind of research he was engaged in:

quote:

---

Crick then concentrated on the biological implications of the structure of the DNA molecule, developing further insights into the genetic code − including the so called 'central dogma' explaining the flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein.

---

About Dr Francis Crick | CrickI'll update this post as I find more information...

Let me get this straight:
You claim that life didn't need an intelligent source to explain its existence. 'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE' to evolve from.
Darwinian logic at its best.
On top of that, you claim IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE that evolution can have nothing to do with the origin of life!
What a disingenuous load of hogwash! That's not even a bad argument, that's an embarrassment.Shows to what lengths Darwinian propagandists are willing to go... Darwinian wishful thinking (based on faith) at its best Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

More on the topic of their research:

quote:

---

In 1953, Watson and Crick published another article in Nature which stated: "it therefore seems likely that the precise sequence of the bases is the CODE that carries the genetical information".[48]

---

Francis Crick - WikipediaThey had the common sense to call a spade a spade, and a code a code....still looking for more details...Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.