Previous post was glitching....

Some scientists believe life originated on earth more than once spontaneously, and that somewhere, bacteria exists that wasnt gobbled up by existing life that is not related to the any of the life registered.

Intelligent design raises no good scientific questions about the process of development of life on earth. It's current manifestation in the design institute etc contributes nothing to scientific advancement. For ID to be relevant, it needs to shed its scientific defintion, because it is simply not a science. The only gap left in biological knowledge is how the cell was created, ID as an explantion for the diversity of life is to br frank, rubbish. If the intelligent design movement PROVED that the cell can only be created, that its spontaneous random development with NO EXTERNAL FORCE was impossible, then it would be respected, and if they pursued that line of research, it would be more respectable.

Quite frankly, the lack of respect given the legitimate field of ID arises primarily from the YEC crowd grabbing ahold of it and claiming it as an anchor.  Essentially every judicial defeat of ID being presented in the Schools here in the US has come about because those bringing suit in favor of ID were using it as a shield hoping to obscure the fact that they were really promoting YEC.

I do not think you understand how chance and statistics work when applied to the real world.   We could look at the chances of you being born.  For the right sperm and egg to come together to make you the chance are 1 in millions.  When we multiply this by the chances of your parents both being born, and then you being born, we are trying to solve for P(A|B|C) where A and B are your parents being born and C is you.  These kind of statistical formulas, when spread out over many generations, get numbers so small it's statistically impossible for you to be here.  But you are here, so the formula is moot.

One other thing to think about is that the chances of winning the lottery are 1 in 70,000,000 and yet, almost every week, someone wins it.  That's because the sample space for which the lottery takes place is relatively large, and someone is bound to win it.  Likewise, with the earth being as large as it is, with the right chemicals, and a timeline that all together provide a huge sample space, abiogenesis is actually likely to take place. 

Evolution is the shifting of the allelic frequency in a population, which is an observed fact.  Speciation occurs over time when a smaller group becomes isolated from a larger group, which is an observed fact.  Genetic drift, point mutations, gene shuffling, insertions deletions, gene duplication etc are all mechanisms that drive this and are all observed fact.  It is also a fact that life on earth is different in different geological eras, completely different.  Organisms fit into a nested hierarchy physiologically, genetically, morphologically, as well as the fossils, junk DNA etc.  This fact is important in medicine because when someone is sick and their blood work is sent to a lab, the disease is placed in the tree of life based on it's genetic features.  This isn't to say it's a variation of something we already know of, it's to find what it is closely related to.  If everything was created separately and shared DNA from a common designer, we would expect to see closed loops when comparing genetics, instead of the branching tree we observe.  Because of this tree of life, we know what new diseases are most closely related to and we know where to start looking for cures based on the closest relatives.

So please do 2 things for me.  Explain what mechanism that makes up a part of the theory of evolution isn't a fact of nature, and secondly, explain what practical application ID has in any field of science.

What questions does ID ask that the evolutionist cannot answer?  Are you aware that a great deal of theists, including myself, accept evolution and reject ID for it's poor approach to science?  ID is rejected not because it has a looming existential inference, but because it tries to explain everything by explaining nothing. 

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.  It is a fact that masses are drawn together, the theory of relativity explains what drives this to take place.  It is a fact that we evolved, it is the theory of evolution that explains what causes it.  There is more evidence for evolution then for relativity, yet nobody argues relativity.  There are better models for evolutionary biology then for quantum theory, yet no one hops on a religious forum and debates whether or not the images in textbooks of molecules should be in there because they are so far removed from what reality is.

The reason people object to evolution is rooted in religious beliefs, the more I have this conversation with people, the more I find it drifts towards God's plan and sin etc.  ID is a religious movement under a politically correct costume.  It is not a science.

  Good grief!! I never thought of that! I renounce my faith... praise the skyfrog.

Wow, you really are a rather stereotypical atheist arent you. Do you feel all clever now  you have just finished the God delusion?

I am not trying to be hostile. I am just winding you up.

All this light humor and yet no genuine response to a very valid question.

If complexity indicates design, then anything complex enough to design requires a designer.

To be honest, its all so mind boggling sometimes I don't think anything is real.

Recently they found something that indicates that the entire universe is a hologram projected from a point outside the known universe

If that doesn't screw with your mind, nothing will.