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

My opponent's argument is as follows: 1. DNA is a code 2. All codes come from an intelligence 3. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligence. I will try to be as clear and concise as possible in offering my refutations. I must note however that I need not abide by my opponent's rule on HOW to debunk him. I just shall. In actuality, the most powerful disproof for this is a rather complicated one, one that I am sure he shall not understand. However, I will use these more elementary disproofs for this debate and may post my complicated one either in the forum after this debate, or in my last rounds. Refutation 1: DNA is a genetic code, not a regular code. Regular codes work by way of symbols, something arbitrary and without meaning is GIVEN meaning by an intelligence. DNA genetic code works without symbols. Each nucleic acid is a thing in and of itself and combines to create larger chains. These chains interact with proteins that bind to them and form smaller amino acids that chain into new proteins. There is no meaning and no intelligence involved in the interpretation of DNA. Refutation 2: DNA is not a code, because it does not have arbitrary rules. All codes and languages are governed by arbitrary rules. Grammar and spelling evolve alongside a language. The rules for pig-latin were developed artificially. DNA is governed by the laws of physics, which neither evolve alongside it, or were developed artificially. SEE VIDEO IN CONJUNCTION WITH REFUTATION 3 & 4 . http://www.youtube.com... Refutation 3: DNA may possibly resemble a code now, but it did not resemble one when it first developed. All codes and languages symbolize something even at the first utterance. DNA originated as amino acids inside a primitive membrane that merely bound to each other and replicated via physical force. Refutation 4: DNA is not a code because all codes could only have been made via intelligence. No known code could have possibly developed naturally. It is possible that DNA arose by way of the video above. Thus, DNA is not a code. Refutation 5: The "code" in Pt. 1 is not the "code" in Pt. 2- Equivalence fallacy. There are different definitions for the word "code". We classify DNA as a code because it shares some similarities to what we view to be codes. The information in DNA is not really information. DNA is not really a code. The notion that codes need to come from an intelligence stems from inductive proof of the actual term "code", not things that are similar to it. Refutation 6: All codes can be used by humans in order to express their own meanings. We can use English words, French words, Spanish words, morse code, and even binary in order to express ourselves. However, we cannot use the mechanisms of interpretation of DNA to send messages. Thus, DNA is not a code. Refutation 7: This argument is invalid because it is not scientific. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The argument that my opponent plagiarized is not a proof, but a theory, since it is inductive in nature. Inductive proofs can only be useful as theories and theories need to be falsifiable if they are to be valid. The original author of this argument provided only 1 way to falsify the theory: Find a naturally occurring code. Codes, by definition, have meaning and there is no objective meaning in nature. Thus, the only way to falsify this "theory" is to find a meaningless code, and that is an oxymoron. Since there is no way to falsify this theory, it is not a valid theory. I shall offer these right now, I look forward to my opponents response. Thank You.