Humans can create humans in some distant future

1. What this contention is about is the inevitability of humanity creating other humanity with technology, to which I argued against saying: a. humans probably won't live long enough to create other humanity and b. there is probably an upper limit on the technology required to create DNA and humanity.My opponent says that humans will of COURSE never die in the next 10,000 years (as the doomsday argument suggests) because we will probably have created technology to prevent doomsday from happening. But that's not really what the Doomsday argument is about - it is about the probability that we are of the last 5% of humans that will ever be born. I won't go into specifics about the DA (it's not really topical here), but what it is essentially saying is that it is much more likely that doomsday will hapen sooner than later, because the oods of us being the first 5% are lower than us being the last 95% of humans to ever have lived.Therefore, pro's refutation isn't even related - technology doesn't prevent us from knowing that it is much more likely for us to be the last of humanity rather than the first. This argument is essentially dropped by pro because it was never actually attacked for what it is. Next, my opponent responds to my refutation of technological barriers by saying that there are current technological barriers in place that prevent us from creating life right now, but that these barriers will be lifted as time goes on. He also says, and I quote verbatim, "we cannot create a molecule with over 3 billion bases in 9000 years, but in 15000 years maybe we can".If humanity is 95% sure to die sometime in the next 10000 years (the number is actually around 9600), then how are we supposed to create life in the future that we most likely won't live to see? Pro admits that we cannot create life within most of the span that we are given by the DA, and if we aren't likely to reach outside of that span, it isn't likely that we will create life - but not only life, HUMAN life. Basically, it is much more likely for us to NOT create human life because we will all be dead by the time that we are able to - as pro concedes.2.This contention is about the ease of creating life. I said that it is easy to create very simple organic molecules, but not things with 3 billion base pairs. Pro doesn't really address this refutation, he just says that once we understand the basics of something (organic molecules), our understanding will RAPIDLY evolve to a state of higher-being and we will be able to create life very soon because we already understand the basics. What he doesn't note here is that he concedes that it isn't likely for us to even live to the advent of technology that would allow us to create humanity in a vial - this alone makes this argument not worth its weight in salt.With his concession aside, just because our understanding evolves doesn't give us a high likelihood of us being able to create life. It just says that maybe we will perhaps one day, just maybe, create something that might be perhaps human life?3.No comment necessary, anything that I would say wouldn't really be topical. (Sorry for the misrepresentation of what you meant by sperm and egg, I didn't know that you meant that these would be synthesised in a lab).Endnote:This debate should be about the probablity that we will create life. We cannot speak in absolutes, so we must have this debate have some sort of criteria for being judged, and I think that the probability for humans to create life is a fine one. If we are over 50% likely to create life, pro ought to win. If we are exactly or under 50% likely to create life, I ought to win (the reason for inclusion of 50% is because pro needs to prove that it is probable for us to create life and I have to go against his claim, not proving that we can't, just saying that it is improbable or exactly equally likely as not).