"... I maintain that the fossil record does not support such (evolutionist) claims...If there exist actual fossilized remains, the location of them is a secret..."
Let me take this away from the purely technical/research driven discussion that it has become, and ask an opinion question. If the fossil evidence is so slim, why are so many archeologists convinced? I realize scientists make mistakes, but science as a whole usually corrects for this. Is this truly a case where the findings point you to believe in ID, or does your belief in ID cause you to question contrary findings?
"...Sir Fred Hoyle, a world-renowned astronomer, is acknowledged to be one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century...Apparently, Sir Hoyle did not believe in ID, but he pretty convincingly, in my estimate, disproved abiogenesis on this planet with the laws of nature as we understand them..."
Maybe I am lumping apples and oranges here, but I think I see a lot of this sort of logic from creationists on this site. They use science and the findings of scientists only as far as they are useful, then they abandon them when they become troublesome. In the above example, because Sir Fred seems to agree with your opinions about evolution, you promote him as an expert witness. However, according to you he doesn’t support the core assertion, which is that complexity requires ID. (You deserve credit for being intellectually honest enough to point this out, though...) There are PhD's that claim HIV does not cause AIDS. I don’t see how one or two opinions, learned as they may be, should count more heavily than the weight of the combined experts in the field.
"...If accidental, or spontaneous, formation of life is impossible, what other options are left..."
Well, if accidental or spontaneous formations of life are impossible why wouldn’t eternal, omniscient, invisible ones be?
"...Where have we ever seen spontaneous formation of any life form? The evidence all around us is that life is resistant to change, not prone to it..."
I don’t agree with your assertion re: life being resistant to change, but if you are looking for proof, where have we ever seen a galactic intelligent designer?
I keep coming back to my original thought. When you are researching a physics or biology or math problem, when do the facts lead you towards ID? When you first get stumped? After three tries? How many current advances in medicine and science would be beyond the comprehension of scientists only 200 years ago? To them, a lot of what we now take for granted would only be explainable by posting assistance from the divine.
Citizzzen
The message is ended, go in peace.