Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

I appreciate Con"s understanding regarding the forfeiture. "DNA is commonly referred to as code, but this is just speaking in shorthand which has led to this misnomer. A code is information. DNA contains genetic code, it is a medium for code, it is not itself code." You are saying that code means the same thing as information. This is incorrect. Code is a medium for information. Letters and words are code. The meaning or message that they express is information. Even if this semantic argument isn"t resolved it does not affect the validity of my point. DNA and computer programming both belong to a certain grouping that I refer to as "a type of code". I have given clear details of the characteristics that define items that are of this group. Again these features are: composed of physical strings of a limited pool of characters; the specific order of the characters is significant, with different sequences producing different outcomes; there is a level of abstractness or potential for interchangeability involved; there is a system that the string of characters physically interacts with to produce a purposeful result; the same character strands can be put in separate systems (of the same general type) and get similar results between the different systems. I have explained how both DNA and computer programming fit well into this category. I think "type of code" is a good name for this grouping, and you don"t. However whatever title we decide is best does not affect the features of said grouping or the fact that DNA and computer programming are both part of it. The objects in this category have only ever been known to form as a result of intelligent or artificial guidance. Despite many decades of research there is no scientific explanation for how they can form naturally. "http://en.wikipedia.org...; I already provided a response that counters this in round 2. Here it is (with some alterations)- There has been some success with random RNA libraries that were able to produce sequences that performed a limited number of relatively simple tasks. However these achievements are analogous to producing a few short words when random sequences of letters are strung out. Creating an isolated word here or there using this method is possible, but to get multiple words to form next to each other in a way that makes sense and creates a greater/more intricate message gets exponentially more and more improbable. These kind of accomplishments with random RNA libraries are minuscule when considering that if an average size bacterial genome were written out on paper then the stack of pages would be almost a foot tall. A living cell consists of thousands of different kinds of chemical reactions all happening simultaneously and working in unison for a common cause. The random RNA library method may be able to produce isolated strands with certain small scale functionality, but to get sequences in parallel that work together to achieve more complex tasks gets exponentially more difficult the higher you try to go with it, just like the case with random letter generation. "Conjecture, yes, but a conjecture that led Altman and Cech to discover the catalytic properties of RNA and win the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry." That"s true about them winning the Nobel Prize but what you said is still conjecture, as you admitted. ""Given that RNA can be both informational (in its nucleotide sequence) and catalytic (due to its ability to form unique three dimensional shapes), it has been hypothesized that early life consisted of an "RNA world" - a world before DNA. It is thought that when RNA was first made, it could have acted as a catalyst for its own replication as well as for the synthesis of proteins. DNA could eventually have evolved from RNA. Some laboratory evidence supports this scenario" This is also conjecture. The "some laboratory evidence" was not given. "*When certain short RNA sequences are added to a mixture of nucleotides, RNA polymers can be formed at a rate 7 million times greater than the formation of polymers without the added RNA. This added RNA is not a template, but a catalyst. *In the test tube, a ribozyme can catalyze the assembly of short RNAs into a longer molecule. This may be how nucleic acid replication evolved. *In living organisms today, the formation of peptide linkages is catalyzed by ribozymes. *In certain viruses called retroviruses, there is an enzyme called reverse transcriptase that catalyzes the synthesis of DNA from RNA."" Even if all these statements are true (no citations given (unless they"re from the textbook you mentioned but even that does not qualify as a reputable source)), what you have said here does not negate my premise "that there is no scientific explanation of how functional DNA can arise abiotically. What you have just offered has very little explanatory power when it comes to achieving a significant understanding of the origin of genomes. "Pro said "most likely to be true."" I said "most likely to be true hypothesis". This is significantly different. "Most likely to be true" means that there is a greater than 50% chance that the statement is correct. "Most likely to be true hypothesis" means that out of our current assortment of hypotheses, this one is the most likely to be true. This does not guarantee that it has an over 50% chance, because as you have pointed out our current understanding of the universe is incomplete. There could in fact be a better explanation, but whether it exists or not is unknown. "Just because a sound hypothesis has not yet been proven doesn't make the hypothesis wrong." This is true but I don"t understand how this equates to a defense of your analogy. A common misunderstanding of the ID standpoint is that when there is a gap in scientific knowledge then ID proponents point to it as positive evidence for their side. This is a false description. The truth is that if something bears the markings of having an intelligent source then IDists will recognize it. If those with an opposing stance say that the object in question can instead be explained by non-artificial means then the IDist will ask for supporting evidence. The other will confess that they do not have sufficient evidence to support their own claim, but then say that the IDist is wrong anyways because they are making a "God of the gaps" type argument. The problem is they forgot or ignored the positive evidence. "Scientists will likely soon reproduce the process by which DNA evolved from RNA in an abiotic environment. " Conjecture I enjoyed this debate and thank Oromagi for playing the role of Con. Vote Pro! http://www.lehigh.edu... https://www.broadinstitute.org... https://www.google.com... (it would make me happy if someone figures out why I included that last link)