GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid

I regretfully point out that my opponent's last post was nothing but accusations and poor sportsmanship. First, my opponent makes a brazen statement where he accuses me of saying something that I absolutely did not say. This is an obvious strawman fallacy since he then goes on to make an irrelevant argument against my alleged statement. Please do not listen to his lies, I never made any statement saying that DNA is a "random, good-for-nothing pattern", this is a figment of his imagination. My opponent claims that since DNA contains information, then DNA is a code. This is untrue as *everything* contains information. This is the essential flaw in his argument. My opponent assumes that the information we see in DNA is the same type of information from a computer chip or a website. What he does not understand is that although we can interpret DNA as a type of information, it actually is not, because it does not involve mental interpretation, but pure physical reaction. This is what makes it differ from all other types of information and why we cannot consider DNA to be a true code and a code developed by intelligence, but rather, a genetic code. My opponent cannot resolve this issue and has not resolved this issue. My opponent then goes on to make an argument that assumes that I conceded that patterns are the same as codes. I have made no such concession and will not. Codes involve mental interpretation, patterns are observed order, DNA is just a physical substance that humans can use as a code, but it is not naturally a code. My opponent then argues by design, using many design arguments that are highly illogical and fallacious. He has already proposed that we discuss it outside this debate, so I shall ignore all his arguments by design and simply tell him and the audience that I have answers to every single one of his arguments regarding Intelligent Design and hope to debate him on it afterwards. My opponent claims that since life comes from DNA, then it must be a code. Life comes from amino acids, from atoms, from molecules, these things are not codes either, they are physical occurrences just like DNA. The way that DNA builds life is not coding, but pure and undirected physical reaction. My opponent makes another claim that since we see DNA as a code, then it is a code. I have addressed this. Through the eyes of a layman, a simple-minded and non-scientific person, or one who is only superficial in knowledge, DNA will be a code. However, close examination and understanding shows how our own flaws in knowledge and understanding form this incorrect notion. Finally, my opponent argues that if DNA is not a code, then it should not be unique. First of all, this is a non sequitor. Something that is a code need not be unique and things that are not codes are not always commonplace. Second of all, DNA is not unique, RNA exists via a slightly different mechanism but almost the same. Third, my opponent does not understand evolution if he does not know why DNA seems to be the most prominent. It is because DNA out-competed others, as was shown in the video that my opponent obviously did not read. This is why there is 1 species of human as opposed to 500 similar species of human and why there is 1 dominant form of genetic code as opposed to 500. In conclusion: My opponent can offer absolutely no arguments. I have set forth a variety of rebuttals for the logical fallacy of his argument and he has not directly addressed even one of them, only go in a roundabout fashion to make different arguments. Whereas mine were direct disproofs, my opponent simply made arguments for his case that of themselves were logically fallacious or rebutted above. Please do not be fooled by my opponent's inclusion of design argument because design argument is inherently filled with logical flaws. Since he has not proven Intelligent Design, it cannot be admitted as evidence. WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FAILS: A more complicated summary is simply that this argument is based on semantics. We see DNA superficially as a code because with DNA, we as humans can do several things with it, such as draw information from it. Since we can do X,Y,Z with DNA and X,Y,Z with other codes, we designate DNA as a code in that particular way. I can drink from a bowl and I can drink from a cup, but that does not make a bowl a cup. There are intrinsic differences between a bowl and a cup and there are intrinsic differences between DNA and normal codes. These differences were clearly illustrated and unrefuted. All codes involve human interpretation of information to be of use. DNA requires only physics. Bacterial flagella are not machines, packs of dogs are not societies, DNA is not a code. Since CON has offered no substantial counterpoint while I have offered many refutations that still stand, and since CON should not make new arguments in the last round, I urge a PRO vote. Thank you.