So ? I am doing the same in regard of your arguments......
Your responses, such as they are and what there is of them, are hardly rebutting anything. Saying, "no, that isn't right" and then pulling another 'example' from those intelligent design websites you keep citing is not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is when you expose the problems in someone's argument, and to be blunt, you really aren't doing that. You're just insisting - repeatedly - that there are problems, and either plunking examples culled from ID websites
into the discussion or else demanding "in-depth" responses. Neither of which is rebutting.
What I just wrote here is a rebuttal. I identified the problem with your argument and explained the causes of that problem. Now that I've done that, you have to refute my rebuttal, meaning prove it wrong. If you do not prove it wrong, then it stands, meaning that your argument is invalidated. Alternatively, you can recant, which means admit that you were wrong and correct your behavior. If you do anything else, then you will show that you're too blinded by your own rectitude to be able to argue effectively, and it will sabotage any other argument you try to make on this subject. Though, frankly, you've dug yourself into such a deep hole on this subject that getting out of it is going to be quite the task, but it's possible, provided that you admit the mistakes you keep making. Otherwise you'll keep digging yourself in deeper.
No, you don't. For that, you would have to go more indepth, which you aren't. You don't even scratch the surface.
Baloney. My job involves fixing computers, which means I have to know a lot of in-depth stuff about computers. Yet when I explain the problem to someone who doesn't know that computer terminology, I have to translate it to more general terminology in order to make sure that they understand my explanation. So no, you do not have to go in-depth on biology stuff to counter ID arguments, especially since the ID arguments you keep advancing amount to little more than, "Wow, this is so amazingly complicated. I don't understand how it could have happened on its own. Must have been designed!"
To insist that I have to go in-depth to counter arguments that don't themselves go in-depth is dishonest, not to mention false. And what you fail to understand - what you've consistently failed to understand - is that you have to show evidence of design first, before your argument can be taken seriously. It takes more to demonstrate that something was designed than to merely say that you don't see how it could have happened naturally or that you think it's impossible - and that's basically all you've done, the entire time you've posted on this subject.
I cannot help you if you either don't understand, or willfullingly ignore scientific evidence.
I mean, to make it easy : where is you example, just ONE, of coded information, that has natural origin ?
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your response is almost invariably to duck anything that anyone says against intelligent design and then to come back with either an example culled from an ID website, or to ask a facile question such as this. Oh, and to comment that it's your opponents who don't understand science.
It is your job to convince other people that intelligent design has validity. I don't really care if you want to believe in it or not. What I care about is when you try to act like your belief is true because you can't believe that it could have happened every other way, and then insist that other people have to prove it false, even though you haven't supported it in the first place. And worse, you play gotcha.
Let's take your question here. You asked me for an example of coded information that has a natural origin. But your question is predicated on the assumption that "code = intelligence", meaning that no matter what answer I pick, you can then claim that it's actually an example of intelligence. That's what I mean by gotcha. The actual fact of the matter is that calling DNA a code is merely a linguistic convenience.
O a code? Is C55
Mg? Is C5
? NaCl? None of those are actual coded information, the way, say, Morse code is. They are simply the chemical compositions of water, chlorophyll, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine, and salt. Yet we can describe them as a code, because we use the names (symbols) I just gave to describe them, and then we use a series of abbreviations - codes - to refer to each by shorthand, because it's easier to say or write the shorthand than it is to use their names we gave them.
That's all it takes for something to be described as a code. It's nothing more than a linguistic convenience that allows our minds - which think in symbols - to grasp the concept more easily. So DNA is not a code in and of itself. We think of it as a code because of the way our brains work, but it doesn't contain coded information (ala, a message) like Morse code. It's simply a series of chemical bases that react to RNA chemical bases to generate chemical compounds, the same way that hydrogen and oxygen react in the presence of heat to make water. In short, DNA and RNA do not depend on a language to work, unlike Morse code or computer code.