Intelligent Design explains many follies

How is to believe that organisms reproduce is unscientific?Where is the flaw in science in how the reproductive system works? I mean this is something you can look into, how things have sex and what the resultant offspring looks like or the traits it carries.As to the belief that complex organic and inorganic matter must be from ID...well thats for you to believe and think about.I feel the question of evolution and abiogensis is most assuredly not about how the universe started. I feel abiogensis never made claim to touch those areas and its presumptous to attribute those characteristics to it.IMO abiogenesis and evolution is solely concerned with after matter came to be, what happend with the matter. And the coolest things about those incdeibly complex in/organic substances is that the structures they are in (while being viewed as incredibly unlikely to form due to the number of processes un/known) are very likely to occur because the complexes are in a far stabler configuration then having isolated atoms floating around.

My recommendation is to you, instead of self-deprecating about your background is to remedy the problem.JC's cost very little to take science classes to help you learn and understand what the scientific method is and how it is used. They also provide chemistry/physics/biology classes at relatively cheap costs so you can bone up on your general knowledge. And depending how good the JC is it may have a class on evolutionary biology in the anthropology section.The largest difficulty with ID is that the majority of the people on that particular side have a tendency to be arm chair biologists with absolutely zero formal training. Lawyers, ethicists, public relation people, and engineers tend to be the main stay, and none of those particular cases have any real formal training in the sciences. (engineers do to a degree but they are pretty much only limited to lower division science classes which definetly are not nearly as rigorous in thought development)

The proof for the incredibly small chance you are over exagerrating is in the fact that the small chance has occured. If the small chance has occured then its probability of occuring is 1. Someone alluded to this earlier in saying that any thing that has occured in the past has an occurence of 1.As to your citation it doesn't incorporate non-traditional forms of 'life' in which you consider things that self-replicate. Unless you can define life in a way that discludes self-replicators. (viruses i think aren't commonly considered life because viruses require, to my knowledge, another organism's reproduction system)While saying that yes the smallest bacteria genome is 470 gene products and it would be difficult to concieve of it coming together, this statement does not necessairly consider any excess in the genome. By that i mean there are probably parts of the genome that can be removed that will not affect the ability of the bacteria to reproduce and grow.Btw its a strange complex to assume that everyone is out to attack the messenger. People are grown ups and can discuss the merits of an idea without attacking the messenger. However, in some cases even when people who disagree and do it respectfully the messenger is sometimes so attached to his/her view that to disagree becomes a personal affront because in some cases it invalidates and bashes his/her person. In that particular case its the messenger putting himself in the way of the attack.

Hehe okay, i didn't think that far ahead in terms of how a past event probabilty 1 thought process would influnce other thinking.Actually what would be interesting, and possibly a thread should be started on it, why the choices between right and left handed life? and in the context of ID, why one over the other?