That's hilarious. And kinda sad.

Abu, where did you find this ?

The 'DNA is a code' argument has been around a few years, he was almost certainly told it or heard it, so he is lying or fooling himself if he reckons he came up with it himself, I think.

It really isn't a code in the sense we use the term, where we match one set of unrelated symbols to another. A good 'designed' code is one where there is no hint of what a given code symbol might decode to.

DNA is the opposite - there is a direct physical/chemical match between the 'code' and the peptide molecule it 'codes' for, that's how it works, what allowed the DNA system to evolve. A designed code would require a far more complex, specifically designed decoding system, rather than a simple system where the matching molecule is most attracted to, most strongly tends to stick to, the matching 'code' sequence.

It is only called a code because the code sequence and the molecule it codes for are clearly different structures, and the connection between the code  and what it codes for is pretty strong, ie it rarely grabs the wrong molecule. So it displays some of the things we see in a human designed code. It is inevitable that some literal-minded people took the metaphor seriously.

This doesn't prove it wasn't designed, but it would need a far more complex relationship between the code and what it codes for to be evidence for intelligent design.

I'm sorry, I can't concentrate on the content because of the wholesale butchering of English spelling and grammar.

That argument is foolish.  As Bob said, it all has to do with affinity.  Every molecule in the body, obviously including nucleotides, have an affinity to bind with some things and not others. 

Affinity for another molecule/cell/nucleotide/etc is not entirely specific.  Case in point, genetic mutation.  In lay terms, the attraction between each nucleotide is not absolute.  Free radicals and mutagens have the power to single handedly change a DNA sequence, and thus create a different code.  The new code, with just one small change, has extremely different results. 

DNA formation is so simply explained in physiology and science in general that I find it hard to believe someone could misconstrue it this badly.

You have to promise not to tell. You better not be crossing your fingers! Seriously, now.......

OK. When I was a young and foolish chap I mixed with a rough crowd (Football hooligans, namely West Ham United "Who are ya!&quot  and I have kept in touch with a couple of them through the miracles of the Internet. I'm certainly NOT giving you the URL to the Forum, but it's not hard to find, just hard to access as you need to be vouched for due to OB snooping and such.

Anyway, he's an ex-thug who now studies DNA and religion. Very poorly, if I'm any judge.

And he's just posted this in answer to my snarkiness:

Me: There are so many holes in the theist argument that you could make a rather large tea bag out of it and have an elephant's tea party. You'd need a lot of tea, some big cups with disproportionately large handles and a napkin of epic proportions but the elephants would like it and it would make a lovely tale for the grandkids.

Him: There are not holes in the theory of evolution they are massive craters.
All evidence points to creation, Study DNA if you dont beleive me., Study
The fossil record,Study the Geologic Column and the laws of Thermodynamics actually support Creation, not Evolution

Oh, this is going to be fun!

As always, Bob, you outshine my pathetic attempts at a coherent argument so well it would almost be worth just posting what I find and let you have at it.

I'd look much cleverer then. It's a shame I don't have the necessary willpower to hold my tongue.