The Christian God Created Life On Earth

It's interesting how a high school sophomore can write better organized arguments and rebuttals than a high school teacher. That should say something about our education system...And my opponent tried to (unsuccessfully) overturn quantum string theory, which has been supported by people with a bit more physics background than him. This is ridiculous. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL A SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT CAN ACHIEVE. IT IS SUPPORTED BY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AND IS DEMONSTRATED, REPLICATED, AND IS USED TO PREDICT FUTURE OBSERVATIONS.Anyways, back to the debate.Abiogenesis:Thank you for your very kind words regarding my chemistry background-- I admit it is what an average Chemistry student knows. However, I still know what an average Chemistry student knows. And it's that the Miller-Urey Experiments (that "proved" abiogenesis) was actually inconclusive. The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earth’s putative primitive atmosphere was then ‘widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen’. They believed this because ‘laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be inibited by oxygen’. Here is one of many examples of where their a priori belief in the ‘fact’ of chemical evolution is used as ‘proof’ of one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O2 in the earth’s early atmosphere rely heavily on speculation. The fact is, ‘We still don’t know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose. It was believed that the results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex life units called proteins—the basic structure of all life. We now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. Without all 20 amino acids as a set, most known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred. According to many researchers today, an even more serious problem is the fact that the atmosphere of the early earth was very different from what Miller assumed. ‘Research has since drawn Miller’s hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. The problem was stated as follows: ‘… the accepted picture of the earth’s early atmosphere has changed: It was probably O2-rich with some nitrogen, a less reactive mixture than Miller’s....’ An average Chemistry student can tell you that much.1A Rebuttal (use of "god" and "created" in definition)Keep in mind that I am using YOUR definitions. No reason to complain.1B Rebuttal (Genesis & and universe's origins)I said Genesis was not a scientific handbook, but it was a series of observations from an ancient point of view.A kid saying "Woah, flying black triangle in the sky!" is not a scientific handbook, but it is an observation I can use to deduce that that the black triangle in the sky is a B2 Spirit bomber.2A Rebuttal: (String theory)My point is, how do these physicists come up with and stick to these theories? Because SCIENTIFIC THEORIES provide SUFFICIENT DATA to convince serious physicists. 2B Rebuttal: (claim; demonstrate, replicate, predict)I have a two word answer for this: black holesWe have a somewhat skewed and shaky data about the existence of black holes, but most of the scientific community is putting their money on it because some "serious physicsts" claim that they exist. This is the truth of our civilization today, and that's how all scientific theories start, which connect to my next sub-rebuttal--2C Rebuttal: (string theory)You tried to overthrow a scientific theory? Nice try, but don't bite off more than what you can chew.String Theory is a widely acclaimed scientific theory that has been DEMONSTRATED, REPLICATED, AND USED IN PREDICTIONS (as per YOUR DEFINITIONS of a "proper" claim). A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Are you just going against all of your definitions? Backwards Day is next week.Thank you, and may the better argument win!