Totally different than the bible you take as a collection of provable, undeniable facts?  

I'll go where the evidence points, not where silly ancient theories from a time when mercury was considered a miracle cure or washing was considered taboo.

You missed my point. Having a gap between non-life and life does not in itself prove God exists, that wasn't my intention (as I've said before, you cannot prove God exists, nor can you disprove He exists). I was attempting to make the point that Science does not have a concrete and provable answer as to the origin of life either. People seem to think that on the origin of life, Science has some concrete, magic bullet, it simply doesn't.

When did I say this?

Science doesn't yet have all the pieces of the puzzle if that's what you mean. But what we do have are some pretty good pointers towards where the answer might lie. Religion doesn't have those pointers in the same way because the bible (or any other holy book) doesn't prove or point to anything in the real world other than "this is what christians belive" (and some historical perspectives about the roman and east roman empires).

Timmah, why do you think ID is the most probable explanation? And do you really think ID is how life came to be?

That's a fair enough argument. By the same token, my faith doesn't come from something I read in a book (Bible or otherwise), it comes from deeply personal experiences in my life that have changed who I am in a hugely positive way. Also, I see those pointers differently then you, and like I've said before, you can't argue somebody into faith, and you're certainly not going to argue me out of my faith.

it was implied.  

and hey, if you're so critical of the accepted theory of the origin of life, come up with a better theory!  I mean, I've never seen someone argue with established scientific fact that either wasn't a brilliant scientist with a conflicting theory or a religious zealot, and given your criticisms and lack of willingness to accept the simplest of facts without substantial counter-arguments, I'm pretty sure you're not a brilliant scientist.  

Fair enough. But you also have to realize that people of every faith all over the world profess to these personal experiences, so while they may matter a lot to you, they are not credible if you use them to try and get others to join your position.

I do appreciate your effort as well but i kinda agreee with Immortal that you take a very narrow view towards the religion. Also you make use of the word "they" to prove your point and that's impossibble to do when a faith like Christianity has so many doctrines it's almost impossible to come up with a valid argument that everyone agrees with. SO referencing you 8 steps:

1. & 2. http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm , O.k. look at this website on the Leviticus 18:22 which is the main argument against gay marriage if you look at all the versions except the newly created 2007 NLT version you will notice that none of these verses says homosexuality exactly. How you interpret the verse determines what you get out of it. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Personally when i read this I get that one should not sleep with a man as one does with a woman. In other words when reading it as is, in other words it's ok to be gay, lesbian or straight. I think the issue my view are those who chose to sleep with both men and women.

3. Personally I don't get what you were getting at here so i have no comment.

4.5.6.7. Considering how many translations there are from the bible and they fact that most of us don't speak hebrew, specifically ancient hebrew it's impossible to recieve the exact same text that original writers have written so it's no surprise that there is so many doctines of the same faith. The main difference between each doctrine is how that group people choose to interpret the bible. Every Christian will tell you that the bible was written by God and I still believe  that. Everyone will tell you that God used certain individuals to write his message for us all. I believe that this text is the specific text we were suppose to read and comprehend but overtime I believe the text has been changed here and there mainly due to translation issues, missing pages, and most importantly man's fault in trying to impose on sacred text. 

8. So my issue here is why isn't there a place for both God and science. You can have both it's not all or none.

Honestly i appreciate your argument and you brought up some interesting points.  I still feel that you're out for blood instead of looking for enlilghtenment, forgive me if i'm wrong. But you are like most athiest i know and is just looking for proof, and i just can't provide you that proof. It's just something I know, in my heart is true. I know that might not be enough for you or other people but unfortunately there is no scientific proof neither I or someone else can provide to prove at this point, to prove God's exsistence. It's called faith for a reason, there are some things of this world we will never understand but it doesn't mean that it's not real or true. So in my closing argument i just want to say that you have the right to believe in what you want to believe and have your associated arguments, but you should also be open to hear other arguments as well and if someone wants to make ridiculous claims by stating their faith then ignore it, it's not worth getting worked up over something so minimal. So i wish you the best luck in your journey in finding a faith or lack thereof.

So something weird and inexplicable happened to you, so that's the basis for your stance on the universe and religion?  

Not a very good argument in the least.  Further explains why I dislike debating religion.  Believe it or not, personal, isoloated experiences followed by oddly convenient but non-reproduceable results is not logic, it's a logical fallacy known as confirmation bias;  just becuase it happened to you doesn't mean it's the majority or in any way admissable as proof or concrete evidence.  

That's as foolish as the smoker who lives to 90 and doesn't die of cancer saying "there's no link between smoking and lung cancer."  just becuase it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen to others.  Or, in your case, like the person who gets struck by lightning and survives, living the rest of his life like he could be struck again at any time, but inexplicably believes in God becuase he was one of the fortunate ones who survived.  

Extraordinary events and circumstances certainly are extraordinary, but they are not concrete proof of a creator.  Just because the chances of all the right proteins and acids and materials coming together at the right place at the right time is astronomically small doesn't mean it's impossible.  You really think that, on this earth in the BILLIONS of years and countless chemical reactions happening every millisecond of those billions of years, that the right combo couldn't come along.  I agree it's a long shot, but the fact that we were able to recreate it in a lab show's it's possible, so even though it's highly unlikely, it's still possible.  You don't need a divine creator to justify that happening, just good old fashioned math.