>I dont assume Christians are weak minded that would be faulty of me, a majority of the great thinkers, past and present are and have been Christians. So you say HERE. in Post 1, you said >I see so many creationists argue against this law of nature, as if they actually know what it is And plenty of other things, but this one popped out at me, and is insulting to the intelligence (or knowledge, if you prefer) of creationists, Christians included. >ID was shot down in courts... And... what, you find courts to be the legitimate authority over all things philosophical and religious? The courts say a lot. They managed to twist like 4 different non-applicable rights into a Constitutionally non-existant right to an abortion. I don't think you're going to convince many Christians to change their mind based on what the court of man decides. >However my main point still stands and that ID/creationism is deceitful and dishonest. It seeks to find facts to support the conclusions, if it is science then it would come to a conclusion to support the facts. That's the BASIS of scientific inquiry! Biogenesis was researched after someone came up with a THEORY and set about to test it. Cells, and DNA were discovered after someone THEORIZED their existence, and set out to prove it. Try finding research grants when all you can tell your potential investors is "We don't really know WHAT we're gonna find." You think evolutionary origin theory came about any differently? >Did you actually read the entire section? Probably not. As I've stated elsewhere, I do have a life. Besides which, the entire debate has no relevance on my day to day life. As an antitheist, I was concerned with such things as how we all came to be in this time and place that we find ourselves, in a vain attempt to find or insert some meaning into my selfish lifestyle. But now, none of that matters to me. What matters is what G-d wants me to do with my life. And this has absolutely nothing to do with that. >Mutations aren't random and i shown why, they are subject to external pressures in a given environment, they don't occur at the initial onset, you're expecting a "pokemon" type event to take place Did I say that's what I was expecting? I think I pointed out that (to my knowledge) we have never observed NEW genetic code being generated via mutation, whether you want to call it random or not. If it's NOT random, I see no other option than to call it intelligent design, personally. <ME>I say always. It's kinda pointless to try. Everybody has an opinion, and you can't "calculate" something like that without assuming a great deal, so how could it ever be possible to estimate accurately, regardless of whose estimates you believe? >And you know this because you've actually studied biology? What does biology have to do with statistics and probabilities? My point was that any statistics "proving" the likelihood or unlikelihood of abiogenesis are inherently biased and flawed. They cannot be trusted, because each assumption is magnified by the immense (alleged) length of time we're dealing with, creating a margin of error (if the researchers are honest) that makes all the data useless.