Let's deal with the problem of abiogenesis.... since this is the crux of the 
problem.... how do we account for the origin of the first self-replicating 
machine (simple cell)... if you are not familiar with Wilder-Smiths book "The 
Scientific Alternative to NeoDarwinism" I'd ask you to take a look at it. This 
scientist has 3 PhDs in various branches of chemistry and he does an excellent 
job of detailing the problems with abiogenesis (which is merely the modern 
version of spontaneous generation)..... as Dawkins acknowledges in "The Blind 
Watchmaker" there are some serious problems with the mathematics of random 
chance assembling a self-replicating organisms... it takes a terrific amount 
of information to build a mechanism that can duplicate itself... the 
complexity of the system is such that it requires another mechanism to 
check for errors and malfunctions in the system.... if the probability of 
an event happening is so vanishingly small that you have to depend on 
"good luck" for it to happen at all (modern abiogenesis is in this position)
it isn't very good science to accept it.... this is why Crick calls it a 
miracle... he is referring to the mathematical probabilities....

Let us turn to another matter, what you consider to be the lack of evidence for
a creator.... what kind of evidence you you require before you were convinced 
that a being outside of the time/space continuum had in fact communciated with
the human race?

By the way, what is your explanation for one of Solomon's proverbs saying "go 
to the ant and consider her ways" -- a proverb coined during a decidedly 
patriarchal society.... there is nothing observable about a female ant that 
would lead to the conclusion that they are female.... they don't lay eggs, so 
that wouldn't lead an observer to consider them female.... how do you suppose 
Solomon came by this insight?

One of the oldest stories in the bible is the book of Job... it contains the 
most references to snow and ice, hence it probably came from an oral tradition 
passed down from the last ice age.... the book of Job says that God hung the 
earth in empty space... how would a bunch of primatives come up with this 
cosmology? competing cosmologies from the ancient world have the earth on the 
back of a turtle...etc. The idea that anything can hang in empty space is not 
a conclusion that can be drawn from experience... Two examples (of hundreds) 
that show decidedly advanced knowledge of scientific concepts for a bunch of 
primative types.... 

If you are familiar with history, you must know that during the "Age of Reason"
so-called higher textual criticism of the bible was born.... these men attacked
the ancient holy books by claiming among other things that 1) Moses couldn't 
have written the first 5 books of the bible because he wouldn't have known how
to write (of course the Rosetta stone had yet to be discovered when this 
assertion was made) 2) the Jonah story in the bible couldn't be true because 
there was no mention of the city of Ninevah by classical writers... (of course 
this statement was made before an archeologist dug it up) 3) the references to 
the Hittites had to be mythology because no classical authors made reference to
them (of course this was before archeologists dug them up), or the account of 
the exodus must be fictional because of the miracles that supposedly occured....
Return to Sodom and Gomorrah: Bible Stories by Archeology" by Charles Pellegrino
(certainly no creationist) says the following on page 230:
"I used to agree with Benjamin Mazar that accounts of cities going up like the 
smoke of a furnace, of darkness throughout the land of Egypt and towering
cliffs of water crashing down upon armies were all sheer mythology, with no
basis in fact.
One of the most fascinating surprises of my life has been the dawing 
realization that some of the more dramatic episodes of the Bible, things that 
appear very strange to most of us living today, perhaps even miraculous, seem 
actually to have occurred.... I think we can begin to read in them, at the very
least, snippets of geologic and historic reality." If one accepts the bibical 
chronology (rather than the re-worked time line that modern critics have 
manufactured) then the events of the Exodus occured when the isle of Thera 
exploded -- hurling fifty cubic miles of rock into the heavens... 
Dr. Pellegrino works in archaeology, anthropology, rocket systems and dinosaur
DNA (his research served as the scientific basis of Jurassic Park). He has
been described by Gould as a space scientist who occasionally looks down and
by Arthur C Clarke as a "polymathic astro-paleontologist-nuclear physicist." 
Will Durant in put this footnote into his chapter on Judea, "The discoveries
here summarized have restored considerable credit to those chapters of Genesis
that record the early traditions of the Jews. In its outlines, and barring
supernatural incidents, the story of the Jews as unfolded in the Old
Testament has stood the test of criticism and archeology; every year adds
corroboration from documents, monumnets, or excavations. ... We must accept
the Biblical account provisionally until it is disproved. 

There you have it, a world class scientist claiming that the 'miracles' of the
Old Testament reflect real events and a world class historian claiming that the
historical details of the Old Test. are true. 

There are other ancient writings that claim to be inspired by deity... but none
of them pass these two tests.... this alone does not prove the existence of a
deity, but it certainly seems a necessary condition of holding that a deity was
involved in writing texts that they 'pass' on these kind of verifiable details
 Now I would ask you to locate a Bible and read Isaiah 53. Who does this passage
describe? 

Based on the works described above, I think it is worth taking a rather serious
look at the bible. Seems these ancient texts are rather different in kind from
other materials from this era. An open minded scholar would do well to examine
them.... 

I have read the materials you refer me to, and am intimately acquainted with
the details of the theories of evolution....even in your post you are admitting
that abiogenesis is a just- so story.... there isn't any evidence that those
little cells in the rocks came into existence through random chance events.
if you put a team of research scientists together in a laboratory, and fund
them with billions of dollars (of tax dollars), and they are able to produce
left and right handed amino acids in a test tube -- or even produce a simple
self-replicating entity, this most assuredly does not prove that such happens
through random processes.... it simply demonstrates that intelligent beings
(with a great deal of information about organic chemistry at their disposal)
can accomplish abiogenesis....

If you were to browse through Dayhoff's "Atlas of Protein Sequence and
Structure" you would note a rather serious problem for macro-evolution.
when comparing the percent sequence divergence (which should reveal a
progression of increasing divergence from the dogfish to the six vertebrate
classes which are supposedly widely separated in evolutionary orignins over
time, instead of less divergence from the dogfish for 'less advanced'
vertebrates and more for 'more advanced' vertebrates, the percent of
divergence
is almost exactly the same for each vertebrate species -- each species of
vertebrate is equally isolated from the cytochrome sequence for the dogfish.
in this and countless other comparisons, it has proved impossible to arrange
protein sequen This is truly amazing when you consider that amphibia are
usually considered intermediate
between fish and mammals, what we really find is that every sequence can
be clearly identified as to which subclass it belongs, with little shading or
ambiguity beyond the species level, furthermore, all sequences of a
particular subclass are equally distant from the sequences in any outgroup,
this is not to say that genetic drift does not occur which influences
observable phenotypes in isolated populations, but this kind of 
microevolution by itself does not prove macroevolution, it can be put forward
as a possibility for macroevolution, but you have to produce more 
substantial evidence that proposing a mechanism where is the evidence 
if it cannot be found in the biochemistry?

The mere fact that there are similarities in the biochemistry of living 
things on the planet proves neither evolution or designer. These 
observable facts can be fit into either theory. 

For evolutionary theory to stand as scientific it must be falsifiable 
(this is a standard requirement of scientific theories) ... so tell me, 
what evidence would it take to disprove the model? Based on the mathematical
problems surrounding abiogenesis and the lack of orderly sequences in the 
proteins.... I have some real doubts that this model accounts for the data..
its is a nice story, and it represents an era of science (heavily influenced 
by mechanisits), but I do not think it is supported by the data.... it is 
supported by arguments/stories/ not data.....
END**************************************************************************