metaphor, let me say that I commend you on your obviously long thought out post. I disagree with you entirely, but I appreciate the manner in which you are voicing your opinion.

I'll let yaarrgg deal with the bible interpretation issue, as I don't really know a whole lot about the bible. As to the origin of life issue though, I don't see how you can say that just because we can't reproduce it in laboratory experiments it isn't possible. By that logic, DNA did not exist until 1953, when the double helix model was confirmed.

Our unique planet.

I don't see this as evidence of creationism. If we didn't have all those factors, we wouldn't be alive to discuss it. The non-creationist theory says that out of all the uncountable planets out there, ours happened to hit upon the right combination of factors that allowed life to happen. If you're arguing that it's extremely unlikely that all these factors aligned by chance, then I would argue that it's even more unlikely for there to be some being out there with the power to create planets. Besides, how did God come to be? There had to be some sort of spontaneous creation in either case, and it seems more realistic to me to think that the tangible earth arose rather than a God.