Origins of life Via creation not evolution

I consider it an honor everytime I debate somebody with a non-mainstream view of science - that takes a lot of guts! In my view, this debate comes down to two key issues:1. Are there any reasonable objections to the evolution model?2. Is the creationist model scientifically tenable? I will address these two issues. First, what reasonable objections have been raised? In the last round, my opponent offered two totally new objections. Neither were backed up by analysis or sources. Nonetheless, I will be kind enough to offer an answer to each. The minimial gene set concept is only a concept because nobody knows what the minimal gene set is. Thousands of experiments to find the magic number of genes have proved futile, and until they do, it's wrong to assert that amount of DNA could not have been produced by reverse transcription. Death is the hero if evolution is true - but is that not also true of religion? Is it not through the denial of life that you enter God's kingdom? Was it not through the death of Jesus that the world was saved? Death is the constant theme of the bible. I believe we can have morality by going beyond our past and focusing on our present. Darwinists have been responsible for far fewer wars and deaths than creationists. I don't mean to bash the bible as being immoral, but rather to explain that religion and darwinism can be just as moral as each other. I consider myself to be a moral person, but I don't need God to do the right thing. Now for the points that were properly analysed in the debate. First, that Miller made only 13 acids. Had my opponent read my source, he would have noticed that after Miller's death, scientists re-analysed his original, sealed samples and found 9 extra amino acids. They then repeated Miller's experiment and found that Miller had simply made a sampling error, and that his experiment was more successful than he had thought. By a cruel twist of fate, Miller had died only months earlier, and so never learnt just how right he was. Second, that I haven't addressed that L vs D amino acid problem (only proteins are left and right handed - the amino acids producing L and R proteins are called L and D respectively). Actually, yes I did. See last round, point 2.4. Third, that oxygen would have oxydated the amino acids. This is not true if the oxygen is bonded with carbon, because oxygen's carbon bond is very strong. Experiments with carbon bonded oxygen, including Miller's experiment, ended up getting the same result - lots of amino acids. Voters can read my source for themselves and see that this is exactly what it says (note: CO2 = carbon dioxide). In what way is this not a "correct" defence? Fourth, that I didn't show life arising from non-life. The problem is that you don't want me to show that, or else you'd jump up and scream "I told you we were designed! " If we recreate the conditions that existed on Earth in that time, we can produce life. Just because intelligence can create those conditions, doesn't mean intelligence did create those conditions when life first started on Earth. As you can see, the evolution model has stood up to all of my opponent's attacks (including the many he dropped in the last round). I have used only a single attack to discredit his - an attack that has been marvellously successful, as my opponent made no attempt to refute it in the last round. It has been said by my opponent that it's pretty clear which side was based on fairy tales. Evolution is a theory based entirely on evidence and experiment. No reference is made to God or anything else that might possibly be a myth. Your entire theory is based on something you have not been able to produce scientific evidence for. You rely on faith in a story, whereas I do not. I, meanwhile, have provided two points of unrefuted analysis that God is only a fairytale. Since my opponent has done nothing to defend the most basic of his contentions, he must lose the debate. The resolution is negated.