BabaSege: My views aren't based on "strident denial". They are as well reasoned and well researched as any other. Darwinian Evolution is nonsensical on a mathematical, molecular biochemical and molecular biomechanical basis. Without the purposeful direction of outside forces, evolution's postulations are scientific impossibilities. Intelligent Design has a lot more going for it scientifically than Darwinian Evolution ever can, on its best day and Biblical Creationism, is simply ONE paradigm for ID. Really? You want to bring the unimaginable complexity and purposeful information characteristics of DNA into a debate about Evolution vs ID?Forget it ... I'm laughing already!!!!

Brent Cantwell: BabaSege, you'll forgive us if we doubt that your strident "there is no evidence for evolution" malarkey a "well reasoned, well researched" conclusion on your part. "Darwinian Evolution is nonsensical on a mathematical, molecular biochemical and molecular biomechanical basis." Redundancy aside, the fact that mention mathematics suggests to me that you don't actually know anything about evolution and instead are just parroting Creationists talking points. "Without the purposeful direction of outside forces, evolution's postulations are scientific impossibilities." Yeah, you definitely don't know what you're talking about.

BabaSege: I know a lot about what I'm talking about. That's the difference between us. I limit my comments to what I do know and what has and can be evidenced scientifically rather than purely on faith grounds, on various sides of the debate.bJust Google Intelligent Design for more info (make sure you go down the back pages the search engines don't really want you to get to where the good stuff is!).

Dan Eastwood: Bluster will get you nowhere. Show us this math you understand so well. Fair warning, I know a bit of math myself.

BabaSege: I absolutely don't need to. Like I said above, don't be lazy and Google ID! The research is there. ID is much more authentic science than Darwinian evolution.

Dan Eastwood: Do not need to, or unable to? I am quite familiar with the arguments for IDC. The entire premise is based on a tacit Bayesian prior assumption that allows no other possibility. IDC is not science at all, but only circular reasoning. Work out the Bayes Factor for yourself, and you will see what I mean. For more detailed mathematical arguments, I refer you to Elsberry and Shallit (2011), Devine (2014), and Rosenhouse (2016).

BabaSege: I repeat, I don't need to. ID is both science and theory, in certain aspects.
However, it's assumptions are logical and scientific, in stark contrast to Darwinian evolution which is dying a death of a thousand cuts. Many self respecting scientists have abandoned it. The more information and knowledge we acquire about the universe and cosmos, the more nonsensical evolution becomes as a credible explanation for it all.

Dan Eastwood: So you are unable. That's OK. Math is hard, and there's no shame in admitting you do not understand difficult concepts.

BabaSege: Don't be lazy!

Dan Eastwood: Don't be absurd.

BabaSege: It's not so complicated. Young Human History (6000+ years). Very aged Earth/Cosmos (however long). These are views accommodated by the Bible. Affirming that science disproves Scripture (or vice versa) unmasks massive ignorance of both. I DON'T need to subscribe to Darwinian evolution and it's supporting belief systems to be consistent with the above