coded information in DNA

I might have missed it, but justify your claim that DNA’s function does not originate from the laws of nature and the properties of its constituents. The pebbles contain a message that is uniquely understood by a language originating with humans, but the DNA’s information is a series of chemical reactions which did not originate with human understanding. Are you claiming that all chemical reactions are information and designed, or is there some special quality that the chemical function of DNA has that distinguishes it from other reactions?

Of course it is relevant to the discussion at hand! You have not specified what exactly "immaterial information" the DNA contains. All the research I have seen indicates that DNA's function is entirely dependent on its structure, e.g. the very antithesis of "immaterial information". If you claim that there is information contained in DNA which is independent of the medium, YOU MUST SPECIFY!

Usually this argument is not made, namely because it is a terrible argument. Before those more experienced in rebutting get a hold of it, allow me to point out some of the more glaringly obvious flaws in this thinking:1) You assume "creation" both occurred and is an artificial event, without considering any possible alternatives. For instance it may be possible that the universe simply cycles between very different sets of physical laws, or even what we perceive as the "beginning" of physical laws is actually a process well within them. In any case there is no cause to make unsupported statements like this.2) By assuming that the entire universe was created supernaturally you are destroying any possible credibility you may have been assumed to have to be able to recognize the difference between natural and supernatural phenomenon. If the universe is wholly supernatural in origin then you cannot possibly have any experience with natural things, so your ability to distinguish between them is very shaky.3) Your statement is just that, a statement. You don't show any supporting evidence whatsoever, or even any *logic*. This is an extremely poor method of debate and signals poor thinking skills.

"You don't believe my dreams are real, therefore I must now kill you!"What is my reward?

No, it has not. Perhaps I was unclear.SPECIFY.Just frikkin' do it.

Simply stating that there are vague things that are shaky and unproven in science's view of the universe does not support your ludicrous concepts, nor does it even establish anything about science in the first place. If you have issues with the scientific view then you can SPECIFY THEM. Hand-waving is simply that, and if all you have to offer is spittle-driven flapping then admit it now so you can be duly ignored. Not particularly, mainly because it isn't a relevant question the other way around. A naturalist will distinguish the difference when it becomes apparent that an event was caused by a known entity, something that they are intimately familiar with due to being known intelligent entities themselves. You will have a hard time arguing that a naturalist has never observed an artificial event because that implies that they have never observed themselves doing anything, ever. So in other words many possible explanations open up if I am willing to go stark raving mad? Thanks, but I don't view slack-jawed gibbering lunacy a valid working theory.