DNA is a code and therefore requires an intelligence to create it
To claim DNA is a code is metaphorical reasoning similar to claiming that one billiard ball "sends a message" to another telling it to drop into a pocket when struck by the first; or that warm air "sends a message" to an ice cube telling it to follow the coded sequential instruction to become water and then vapor.
Physical responses to physical causes are not the reading of codes. DNA is a physical cause of physical responses. Metaphorically claiming it is a code so as to reason backwards to an intelligent writer of that code so as to arrive at creationism is not valid.
I would like to thank my opponent for having this topic to debate.
DNA is sequence specific, meaning that the order of DNA matters to its function. Changing the order of the nucleotides will cause the DNA to not function properly just like changing the order 1s and 0s of binary will cause it to not function properly.
Billiard balls are not a good analogy because they are not sequence specific. It could be the 3 ball or the 7 it would not matter to the outcome. Also Morse code is ink on a paper meaning if you follow its instruction you are just responding to a physical cause.
Even the most famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, refers to DNA as "The Genetic Code" and says how it is "uncannily computerlike"
That its effects are sequential may remind us of language, but it is not language. Language transfers information to an intelligence which then initiates action. DNA causes physical effects directly.
Dawkins is right: DNA is indeed "uncannily computer like" and that is exactly why the mistake is being made which is the subject of this debate. But reminding us of a computer does not make it one.
I couldn't find your definition of language in any dictionary, so I found one.
Human minds storing an MLK speech on DNA is no different than storing it on colored rocks. Both cases involve storing symbols and then symbol reading by humans, not a direct chemical reaction.
DNA does not "convey info on instructions to build proteins". It directly causes the proteins to form as a result of the chemical reactions that it undergoes. Chemicals don't communicate. They interact physically.
People can communicate to a wall, and that wall has no knowledge; therefore, communications does not imply knowledge.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|