Done so. But you rejected all my explanations and links. Its your turn now to make your case.
No, you haven't
done so. All you've done is regurgitate snippets from other sites that you thought supported your case. All that accomplished was to make it evident that you were looking only for evidence which supported your existing belief. That's not how you discover things. You have to base your conclusions on all of the evidence available to you, and if you find evidence which contradicts what you think is true, then you need to take it into account, which means that what you think is true probably isn't.
Plus, you showed that you weren't really interested in anything I might have to say when you declined to debate me one-on-one. Indeed, you've shown that same disregard for what other people think all along. All that matters to you is what you believe, and 'proving' that you're right. People have been trying to prove their beliefs that way for thousands of years, and it hasn't worked once; someone else can always come up with their own belief, and then you have positions that can't be reconciled.
That's why science is so valuable - because if you go where the evidence leads, and don't insist that things you already believed must be true, you can avoid getting stuck in that trap of self-deception.
To get back to the point, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people. But if you want to show that it is an actual language/code, used for meaningful communication between intelligent entities, then you have to provide evidence of that. Not simply point to human references to it as a language or a code, because that's just semantics.