Thanks for the info. You're like an encyclopedic service that I can call on, and then not have to do any work myself. OK, now for my initial observations:

1. The beauty of ID is that it doesn't have to make predictions or produce evidence! I'm mostly kidding, but I acknowledge the aspect of it that includes built-in answers for creation. This does not mean that a creationist viewpoint cannot be forever tweaked by new discoveries; it should in fact be supported by them. It also does not mean that they are not true.

As far as Miller's experiment - I really thought that maybe there was new work on this. There are countless resources that enumerate the flaws of it - are there not newer experiments that attempt to do prove the same thing with more accurate conditions? If I recall, I think he created an environment that was highly unlikely for early earth.

But maybe the original cells came from space? That could be - but of course that begs the question " Where did they come from?" Still, I was unaware of that.

2. Hoo Boy, that was some fun readin'! However, that was by far the one that causes me to consider what I once thought was absolutely ludicrous. I'm considering. The concept is still way incredible.

3. This one has nothing to do with evolution. We need a mechanism for this change. The author wrote this in a manner that implies we evolve with a purpose and a direction (that would be divine). We can't forget that the mechanism of evolution is random genetic mutation, and we've already established that that's an amoral process.

Let me know where I'm missing the boat.