hey I was quoting my buddy, this was one of his counters. I think it's fairly weak point myself, but if it were a court of law we were in it might hold water. We're not talking about something here that is completely tangable here. We are talking about genetic code, and in science you can't just say something is true because you know of no instance where it doesn't seem to be true. In science it has to be demonstratable, so in that sense you can't prove something is by using examples of what it is not. We figured out the earth was round not by proving it's not square or triangular but by demonstrating certain properties, that the earth has, that belong only to spherical objects. You can't prove a positive by using negatives in science, you need to be able to demonstrate your findings. If you say 'all codes are from inteligent design' then you need to demonstrate that. I don't think this can be done, however I'm still with you (and him) on the conclusion that it sure SEEMS to be the case. But whatever, this was his point afterall not mine, just playing devil's advocate here.
"And what else do we know that floats?"
"Really small stones!"
What you written above I agree with but I believe that is not the case when it comes to this topic - I believe Mr. Marshall has proven his case not only by proving what it is not but by proving what it is. Again, look at the definitions of just what a language/code is. Did you actually read his whole argument? Go to his site and take some time to do so - Watch his video.