I often get irritated with creationists, well because their arguments are faulty. One such argument is that DNA could only have been created as it can carry all the hereditary information for a person. I agree this is truly amazing but it does not mean that it was created. For example if it was created, I would expect the creator to have done a better job on it so let me elaborate.
Simple mutations in the DNA strand can lead to some very serious sicknesses or retardation's. One only has to think as far as trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) which is simply three copies of chromosome 21. Or hemophilia which effects the X sex chromosome making men far more susceptible to get it than women ...... and they say god is a man? If these are simple mutations then one would think that a creator would make these mutations impossible by creating an information system that does not allow chromosome mutations. I mean after all god is meant to be omnipotent in most religions.
Talking about stronger DNA types. I think I creator would have done a better job like scientists have shown with artificial genetic material. These various genetic materials have been shown to be more chemically stable compared to DNA which is impressive when you consider that it was created by humble scientists (okay not always humble) in a small laboratory and not with a swish of the hand like the imaginary god.Here is a list of the synthetic genetic materials with their wikipedia links. XNA, PNA,GNA and TNA.
I am guessing some creationists will now try use the analogy of a designer (scientist) for synthetic genetic material as a way to show that their god exists. One problem DNA still allows these horrible mutations, which synthetic DNA shows less of. So in effect your god did a shocking job and as such is not a good creator.....or your god is a very very bad person. Your choice?
Personally I go with the non existence choice after all one would expect more from a designer. I know when I buy a watch I buy a good one to last, not a cheap fake.