Origins of life Via creation not evolution

I want to respond to the claims presented. I then will answer any questions, and then counter. I am sure this debate can go on forever considering the topic's relevance. First, I want to point out that you need over 100 amino acids to make a protein. I believe you said 22 were made? http://class.fst.ohio-state.edu... Second, Notice the use of fiction and uncertainty. My opponent says, "some things are necessary for them(amino acids) to pop up". Pop up? I will leave that fairy tale alone, for now. My opponent uses the Miller-Urey experiment to prove his point. He correctly identifies that Stanley Miller's experiment consisted of water, hydrogen, heat, methane, and ammonia in the early earth's atmosphere. It amuses me that anyone uses Stanley Miller experiment. I will give you a few reasons to never give any validity to his experiment. 1)Stanley Miller used the wrong mixture of gases in the apparatus. He used, as my opponent said, water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane. He later found out that these were not likely in the early earth's atmosphere. An example would be that if methane was really in the earth's early atmosphere, then scientists should see it stuck to deep layers of ancient sedimentary clays. It is not there! He then went on to use the more plausible mixture of gases from the early earth atmosphere. When he did so, his experiment failed. http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... 2)Stanley Miller was careful not to use oxygen. A.I. Oparin, who fathered chemical evolution, knew oxygen in the atmosphere would prevent evolution from occurring. Like Miller, he deliberately did not include oxygen in his experiment. As deep as we dig into antiquities, oxidized rocks are abundant, suggesting an oxygen rich atmosphere in the early earth. 3)Stanley Miller's experiment, in fact, points to a creator. He deceived the scientific world by making a trap door in the apparatus (a chemist's trick) to hide the amino acids and sugars he made. He knew that the same electricity he was using to combine the gases would also destroy the very amino acids he was attempting to make. How deceptive is this? You're supposed to be showing these gases making life by themselves. Instead, intelligence is being used to try to make plausible conditions for life. And even then, he is eons away from a protein. How does this prove a creator? It always takes intervention from intelligence. 4)The books don't tell you that Stanley Miller produced a combination of left and right handed amino acids. Problem? If there is just ONE right handed amino acid, the whole system fails. NO LIFE. Life originates from left handed amino acids alone. "The proteins in living cells are made of just certain kinds of amino acids: those that are "alpha" (short) and "left-handed". Miller's "primordial soup" contained many long… amino acids in equal numbers of both right and left-handed forms. Problem: just one long or right-handed amino acid inserted into a chain of short left-handed amino acids would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper protein function. What Miller actually produced was a seething brew of potent poisons that would absolutely destroy any hope for life." (Dr. Gary Parker, Creation Facts of Life Page 20) Next, I want you to see the language of my opponent's statement. Notice the absurdities that allude to science fiction. Were the aliens that sent the meteors to earth, right handed or left handed? =) "There is another possibility - amino acids could have dropped here from a meteor. There exist numerous and quite complex models for how the amino acids got on the meteor…" "Note that neither of these alternatives requires divine intervention." This is what my opponent wrote. Rather than quoting all of it, I will copy it and then respond. "Second, about the arrival of DNA. There is now much evidence that DNA was not necessary for early life, because RNA can act as a substitute (http://www.accessexcellence.org...; RNA is not DNA. The substitutions you see where RNA replaces DNA is in viruses. DNA is literally the blueprint of life. No act of RNA can substitute the role of DNA. DNA and RNA simultaneously must be present. One cannot do its role without the other. DNA contains the genetic codes to make RNA and the RNA, in turn, then contains the codes for the primary sequence of amino acids to make proteins. http://www.elmhurst.edu... Question still unanswered, where did the DNA come from? Maybe a comet sent it? Again, look at his words. "Fourth, an example of non-life producing life? Planet Earth. Once it had no life, now it has life. I know I'm begging the question, but scientists are astonishingly close to creating basic life-forms without divine intervention. " Two points about this statement. He says scientists are close to creating basic life forms…That is my point. It takes outside intelligence, in a lab, using pre-existing substances to make life. Sounds like some intervention to me. And he contradicts all he has said before: that the building blocks of life were made by natural processes, but here he says scientists are close. Which is it? "It won't occur in the wild anymore because there's too much oxygen out there now (we had this big oxygen explosion thing) but it can be done in the lab." As even an evolutionary scientist A.I. Oparin admitted, oxygen was present in the early earth. I gave proof above. The ancient rocks attests to this point. Conclusion to your comments You have not demonstrated life coming from nonlife according to the scientific method. You have only made assumptions without facts to back them up. This debate is one you cannot win with pseudo-science fairy tales. "This brings me to my single (though admittedly complex) question for you- do you have any observable, testable, and unfalsifiable evidence that a deity exists? My argument is that in the absence of scientific evidence for God's existence, we cannot believe creationism from a scientific standpoint. Since this debate is to be judged on scientific criteria, my opponent cannot win the debate." I made a big error, I think. The question you posed above has a different debate all over it. I am willing to dialog this, however. I am new to this site and didn't word the subject clearly. I noticed the subject of my debate was "origins of life via creation, not evolution." I didn't mean to argue the science and the theology in this debate; this would just take too long. There is so much to cover in the science alone. Since it was my error, I will be brief in answering your question. There are many proofs of God's existence. Using science isn't a problem to theists. If we have two plausible world views that are most likely to have occurred, I am sure we can get somewhere with this debate. I am pretty sure you agree that the world and all in it is either: 1) by the hand of a divine creator; or unguided, unintelligent natural processes. Those two are the most plausible hypotheses. I can also prove that not all truths can be tested by the scientific method. 1)Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. 2)The fine tuning of the universe 3)Existence of morality, love, justice, knowing of impending death, and mere consciousness 4)The major problems in biological, chemical, cosmic, stellar, and organic evolution of life has proven the only other plausible answer to the world is a creator. As I stated this is a different debate. I would be glad to dialog about this. You can test my points by science. Conclusion: You have not demonstrated that non-life produces life. Then, you invoke it by saying scientists are working on it. This is my point. It takes intelligence to make life.