Jaime, I agree, I am just saying that at this time, scientific proof is unavailable to both sides. DNA supports a creator in the fact that everyone and everything is unique. But I am sure you don't see it that way. The problem is you would reject any evidence.
I know some people believe that, but it doesn't make it true. You have to be able to show - not just claim - why this is the case, and why your explanation works better than the existing, accepted sciences (biology/evolution). A strong point against DNA supporting creation is the fact that there are only four base pairs (letters), as opposed to dozens. Look at the language we're typing in, for example. We have no less than 26 individual 'letters' that we use for representing language; DNA has four. Our 'code' for this language, English, has far more potential variety than DNA code does simply because it has far more 'letters' to work with.
Because DNA has so few total base pairs, you end up with a lot of base pair sequences which end up coding for the same amino acid. Indeed, because of the few base pairs, DNA ultimately ends up being extremely repetitive - the sort of repetitiveness you would be much more likely to find in something that developed naturally through pressures from the environment than in something designed by intelligence. I've done computer programming in the past, and I know how much easier it is to work with a regular programming language than with something like binary (which has two 'letters'). It's true that computers do in fact still use binary in their transistors, but we use higher-level languages for the operating systems of computers nowadays - and those higher-level languages are evident within the hard drives of those computers. The thing is, DNA has no such higher-level language (at least not that we've ever found - in deed, we've never even found the slightest hint that there ever was one).
The point is, the total lack of scientific evidence argues against a 'creator', and not just in DNA. I suspect that the main reason you think DNA requires a 'creator' is because you think any code would have to have one. But simple codes like DNA don't have to have been 'created'. They could simply have developed naturally over time, becoming steadily more complex as they developed due to the pressures of natural selection (things like environmental stimuli, competition, and reproduction). It's a lot more believable than something like a god making every living thing...working through a code with only four letters in it.
God did leave at least one thing behind that proves His existence. This is Jesus Christ. Since both sides have agreed to the fact that we have no scientific means or measures available to test, then proof has to come from other areas. Two areas that I am proposing are historically and scholarly.
I definitely do not agree with your statement that "we have no scientific measures available to test". If Jesus actually existed, he had DNA, which we could test and trace. There's carbon-dating, and other scientific means that could be used to check on claims made in the Bible. Indeed, we have used such methods on ancient scrolls to confirm their authenticity.
There's some serious problems with claiming historical evidence in favor of the existence of Jesus Christ (let alone his supposed divinity). For one, according to the Gospels, most of the disciples knew where Jesus's tomb was, as did Joseph of Aramathea, as did the Romans (because they had guards there). Yet with all of these people who knew the tomb's physical location, some of whom would have taken the opportunity to write it down or at least pass it on to others...we don't have a single record of its actual location. Not one.
Are we seriously supposed to believe that all of the people who knew the location of the "empty tomb" simply forgot to tell anyone else or write it down for posterity's sake? Because that's the only way that the tomb's location would have been lost, that or a deliberate and intentional effort to hide or destroy that information. That, or there never was such a tomb to begin with. And that's just one of the issues with your historical evidence.
Do you see the problem with claiming historical evidence now, when that historical evidence has holes large enough to drive a truck through? Never mind the things which the Gospels claim happened that there are no records of ever actually happening, anywhere else - when there certainly should be records of it.
As for scholarly evidence, this is even more threadbare. Yes, some scholars reference Christians, Christianity, and so on, but very few actually reference Jesus Christ. The ones that do are either much later - meaning, nobody actually took down any scholarly records during or immediately after the period of his life - or have been altered, such as Josephus's Antiquities (notably, nobody so much as mentions the two passages where he 'talks' about Jesus until hundreds of years after the fact; indeed, during the time of a man known to espouse pious frauds, lying in the name of his religion). Do you see the problem with trying to claim scholarly evidence now?
