Strange...I could've sworn I nailed the point right on it's head...
You are starting out with the assumption that DNA is not natural. That is not a demonstrable fact that can be verified.
I am choosing to start out with the opposite assumption: that it is natural.
I don't drink Kool Aid bubba. I drink Crystal Lite.
The genetic code is itself is nothing more then a series of chemical reactions. Why do you exclude non-biologically based chemical reactions?
If you exclude them, then consider the following:
All codes and languages that we are aware of are the result of DNA - directly and indirectly.
Within that whole is a small group of "languages" or "codes" that are used by animals (including humans) to communicate.
You are creating a fallacy by stating that because this small group of codes was created by intellegence interacting with DNA - then the larger group - all DNA - must there fore be created by an intellegent being because an intellegent being created this smaller group.
I could just as easily conclude that DNA naturally evolved and from it came other code-makers. then there is no need for me to invent a diety to explain it.
Not necessarily. What works is what survives in evolution. DNA works. Very well. More to the point it offers proof to common origins of life on earth. Not proof of a deity.
Who gives a fig about PC? I don't need scientific proof to believe in a deity and I don't have to compromise science for it either.
The gauntlet is churned into the mud buddy...keep trying.
