The World is Flat?

[redspear]

Ok let's take that star argument a step further. According to NASA there are over 10 billion trillion(10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars in the known universe of which 75% are binary systems or greater so that leaves us with 2.5 billion trillion single star systems and even with 1 percent of those stars would be habitable by us it is still several hundred million trillion stars that would be habitiable that is a lot. And the odds are much much greater than even just a trillion.
Secondly you talk about no sub human species. If you can explain to me what Allopatric speciation, Sympatric Speciation, Parapatric speciation, and tell me why you think it is wrong other than you think it just is which is what you have said or that no one has looked into the situation in evolution(which is wrong) than you can talk. Try looking into Dollo's law and see how it corelates to speciation. It deals specifically with genetic expression and unexpression.
You keep talking about how perfect everything is but did you knwo that you are far from perfect your genetic is mostly trash. That you have a ton of genetic code that goes unused strings of DNA that do not produce their associated proteins. That there are techniques that creatures use to surpress certain traits over time.
Did you know that there are many failures in evolution. they are hard to spot because they have too many fatal genes and don't reproduce. there are two headed turtles and 3 legged cats. Did you know that your genetic code is noticebly different than the genes your great great great grandfather had that it has even changed since than.

The eye is common attack by ID becuase it was questioned by even darwin himself. But the eye started off as pigmented cells and has gone through a wide variety of changed including creatures that have water filled cavities with pigmented cells at the bottom.

But all of that aside my biggest problem with ID is that it does one thing that no other purported scientific hypothesis(I say hypothesis because there is no evidence to support ID and say purported because it is not science) is that it says well something made it no need to look forward or look deeper and just kind of feeds on this fast food version of science that says give me all the answers now.

Fooflexible I am not attacking you nor am I calling you dum by any means but I do want to know. What is your opinion about the book of genesis specifically Noah and creation? If religion is the reason you believe in ID are you a literalist or an interpretist? How old do you think the Universe is? rememebr there are no right or wrong answers but to be fair I will give you mine.

I believe there was someone like Noah who expeirenced a massive flood and ended up out to sea but not a flood that covered the world(even in Hebrew "Erets" could mean field country or world). With regards to creation I do not believe in creation as literal story I think it may tell the story of the begining of the jewish/christian/muslim peoples even genesis hints at this with the people in the land of nod not too mention the two seperate stories about creation in Genesis(The first Featuring Elohim the second featuring Yahweh)? The bible was written by men and many of the stories were original passed down orally and in no way what originally happened as told or at least my viewpoint.

When it comes to ID let me ask these questions
What does ID bring to the table? What would study of ID help scientists and engineers understand that could benefit mankind? What does ID prove? and finally What can ID prove? It seems like a a dead end in circular reasoning to me. Like someone taking an Ox cart down a super highway ID seems to try and halt progress of logic and reasoning and does little to help faith at the same time.