There is a lot to answer here.
The first major push back is the connotation of "intent" and "purpose" on the part of bacteria. These are human constructs with no force in the universe. Bacteria are, most simply, very flexible life forms that adapt, through evolution, to various environments be that in a crack in the rock deep in the crust or in your nasal cavity.
The second point is to consider further back from bacteria. Regardless of which abiogenic model is considered, a self-replicating chain of molecules came into existence and, under the forces of evolution, complex chemical structures resulted. Those self-replicating chains that blindly, un-purposefully, evolved structures that aided its replication survived. The complex chemical structures around which these evolving self-replicating chains were encased were simply survival vessels aiding in replication.
From viruses to bacteria, from oak trees to pretty girls, all "life" is merely the complex structure, the survival vessel, for the evolving complex forms of the original self-replicating chain that started this whole thing off some 3+ billion years ago.
Since all life forms work in colonies of kin and non related beings within our bodies and throughout the entire biosphere, directed existence speaks for all living entities on the planet.
This is fallacious. You need to reconsider.
The fossil evidence proves we are replaceable entities in that 99% are extinct while the bacteria have remained the same since their origin.
This "interpretation" of the fossil record "proves" no such thing.
I will leave the obvious religious points you make to others.
Edited by AZPaul3, : spileng prublims