I notice that you have utterly failed to address the points I made about why design is *not* an "equally plausible solution" for the nature of the observed evidence. "Designed" DNA would show significantly different features from evolved DNA. What does the DNA evidence actually show? It meets the predictions of evolution, not design. For starters, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html. That's just a portion of the ways that DNA matches evolutionary predictions. Then hit the "Contents" button for yet more ways (not just DNA) in which the biological evidence (both present, and past) closely matches evolutionary predictions, but for the most part clashes strongly with what would be expected from the results of "intelligent design".
Since you have not even attempted to refute them, the points still stand, and you are being less then honest with yourself when you then continue to declare that it is "equally plausible".
--In other words, all known biological systems and DNA sequences are so far consistent with an evolutionary origin.--
It's also consistent with a designer creating an environment and then creating a diverse ecosystem of plants and animals designed to flourish, self repair and self replicate.
Again, no it is not, unless you are talking about the most minimal amount of "intelligent seeding" at the beginning, followed by a hands-off approach that let nature take its own course subsequently.
--Gosh, food for thought, eh?--
It has been one of the main courses of my food for thought ever since I started debating this subject in 1982.
Then try debating it, instead of failing to address points made counter to your original statements. Honest debate either incorporates objections made to one's argument, or substantially rebuts them. "Debate" which simply ignores objections and rebuttals and then continues to repeat itself isn't debate, it's merely proselytization.