There is a big difference between a chain of polypeptides which have a proven method for selecting beneficial combinations and a radio signal that can both naturally reach across the galaxy and naturally contains a repeating pattern.  But you of course completely overstate the scientific position as a straw man.  Scientists would not simply take a repeating radio signal as proof of other life by itself, there would have to be something more because quite simply we don't know if there are things capable of producing such a signal.  Although if such natural signal producers existed it would be quite odd that we hadn't picked them up yet considering all of the natural signals we do pick up already and none of them have a pattern.

In short, the DNA code isn't considered ID because we can show basic simple rules that are fundamental to the laws of physics that produces that evolution and increasing complexity.  The radio signal would be widely considered as proof because we don't know of a way it can be done...although any scientist worth his salt would tell you that alone is not proof. 

Wrong, YOU don't concider DNS as proof of ID, I and many others see it as evidence (not proof, evidence). If it's so 'natural' for physics to produce evolution of increasing complexity eventually leading to life, why can intelligent scientists not even create life ON PURPOSE in a perfectly prepared and controlled test environment. The 'primordial ooze' that supposedly begat life would have had countless minerals in it that would work against and destroy the fragile peptide chains needed to create life. If we (intelligence) can't even do it in a controlled environment, how did it happen in a chaotic, destructive environment?

For both of these points you're proving quite ignorant on the topic and I mean that in the strictest sense. I don't believe you've even made a good faith attempt to understand what the current (or even former) big bang theories truly state.  The piece you are so clearly missing is that the big bang's biggest weakness according even to the scientist who aspouse it is that they cannot explain what causes it...they don't say it has no causal event..only that they cannot explain it. Although it is fair to say that there are two theories for a causal event which are being tested.  Neither of those theories break Newton's third or first law. So really the issue here was that you hadn't done enough research but were playing the critic anyways. 

Why the insults of my comprehension? And when you don't even truly get what I'm saying. You said that the biggest weakness is that the big bang can't be explained. That's exactly what I said in so many words. Where's the disagreement?? I understand what the big bang theory states, and I also understand that they cannot explain why it happened. The fact is that physics states that it shouldn't have happened without a huge amount of unexplained energy coming from an unknown source. You are willing to accept that you can't explain that, I simply believe that unexplained force was God. I don't deny the big bang at all, on the contrary, I believe it happened. I just believe God caused it.

I'm not entirely sure that you have a good grasp on what entropy truly is.  Generally speaking the principle of entropy is usually applied to thermodynamics.  I see the direction you are trying to take however and I have to ask how did you go from "without the introduction of an outside force" to the requirement that that outside force be something alive in the first place? 

Um... I understand that it relates to thermodynamics generally, and I have a good grasp of it. Also, I never said that the outside force 'had' to be alive, I just said "Such as life" as an EXAMPLE. It was clearly an example that was not exclusive to nonliving things. I was simply stating that the universe tends to go from varying energy (hot stars, cold outer space) and order (solar systems), to evenly distributed energy and lack of order (stars burnt out and solar systems destroyed). It is accepted that the universe will eventually 'burn out' as energy is equalized. This will be MANY billions of years in the future, but it is accepted that it will happen. My contention is simply that an outside force would be required to force a ball of mass in an equalized state to explode. You say this is unexplained, I believe that God did it. I have never said this is 'proof' of god, just evidence. It's also subjective as evidence always is.

As for your big bang require an outside energy source I think if you read up on the current theories I mentioned above you'll find that a multiversal approach is precisely the one scientists have taken.  As for timing being considered infinite I think you need to check your facts, to my knowledge there have never been experiments done that prove time is infinte and no scientists relies on this information because it is unproven.  But that portion is a secondary topic in this discussion since the outside force is precisely what  the top scientists from around the world are attempting to prove.  Again I would urge you to read up on these things before you make statements you are woefully uninformed about.

I have read up on these things. I don't disagree with the outside energy theory, in fact that is my point. I simply believe that God was the source for outside energy, the scientists don't have an answer as to what that energy was.

 None of these arguments are crediable, and while you're correct that there will never be enough proof for the diehards on either side you are actually incorrect if you think that only a "God" could have documented the events.  In fact with our recent replacement of the hubble telescope with the JWST we are recieving information and data about periods of time only a few hundred million years after the big bang, a period of time before even our sun was formed.  With better equipment it is not only possible, but likely, that in the future we will be getting similar data from only a few million years after and potentially even within a few years with good enough equipment.

My arguments are credible as EVIDENCE, but as I said, evidence is subjective to a large degree. I have never tried to disprove the big bang!! Please understand that. I fully believe that the big bang happened. We just differ on what caused it, and I don't think we can reconcile that with evidence.

And please, there's no need to insult my comprehension of these subjects. I'm not trying to use them to say a 'big bang' never happened, just that it could not have happened on it's own and required an ouside force. This is accepted by scientists. I'm merely suggesting that an unexplainable outside force with near infinite or infinite power sounds a whole lot like God.

Stay tuned, things will get exciting! 

I read you. And I wonder what you do about those millions of scientific proofs about

- the age of our planet and the formation processus (a slow one) that are observe across univers.

- the dinosaurs bones spread all across the planet. Are they all fake ?

- the human bones that spead over a 2,4 millions years era, showing various shapes and form of our body across time. Are they all fake ?

- The physical changes of humanity during a period as small as 1 century.

If being a creationist is about ignoring all these FACTS to choose some obscur theories made by a religion that is barely 2k years old, then don't expect me to call it "sane" or "intelligent". 

 It's not.

I read you. And I wonder what you do about those millions of scientific proofs about

- the age of our planet and the formation processus (a slow one) that are observe across univers.

- the dinosaurs bones spread all across the planet. Are they all fake ?

- the human bones that spead over a 2,4 millions years era, showing various shapes and form of our body across time. Are they all fake ?

- The physical changes of humanity during a period as small as 1 century.

If being a creationist is about ignoring all these FACTS to choose some obscur theories made by a religion that is barely 2k years old, then don't expect me to call it "sane" or "intelligent". 

 It's not.