Origins of life Via creation not evolution

First, let's look at what he had to say:1. 100 amino acids = 1 proteinIf this were true, I suppose humans must be non-living. You will have probably learnt in primary school (though you can refresh your memory here: . http://kidshealth.org...) humans create protein using only 22 amino acids (2 of which are disputed). Of these 12 are generally accepted to be non-essential (. http://www.nutramed.com...). Thankfully this is not true. It seems my opponent has simply misread his source. In order to create proteins, amino acids bind themselves to RNA in "chains. " The length of these chains usually is about 100, but the chain is made up of only those same 22 (your source states 20 because 2 are disputed). If voters read my opponent's source carefully, they will note that this is in fact what it says. So the 22 amino acids produced were more than enough to start forming proteins.2. Stanley-Miller was wrong2.1 He used methaneI've already told you that methane (and ammonia for that matter) are disputed. That's why he repeated the experiment with the products of a volcanic eruption (as I told you). Later scientists have shown that substituting in oxygen gives much the same result (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).2.2 He controlled for oxygenThis isn't an unreasonable assumption. Oxygen is a wild gas, full of chemical energy, and it likes to bond with things. One thing it likes to bond with is carbon, and under typical conditions this forms carbon dioxide. My opponent will note that earlier rocks contain lots of carbon, which supports an atmosphere not full of free oxygen, but carbon dioxide. Upon learning of this finding, Miller revised his experiment using the products of a volcanic eruption, making sure to add some carbon dioxide into the mix.2.3 He put in a trap doorThe trap was simply to isolate the water with amino acids from the rest of the water (not a chemist's trick, as L amino acids don't react with water). In the real world, the amino acids he made would have simply gone back into the water. Electricity would only have destroyed the acids if it had stuck around for long, which lightning doesn't. The only role of electricity is to induce a chemical reaction. There are multiple things that can do that.2.4 Produced type L and D acidsThe simple answer is that D acids dissolve in water, L acids don't as easily (. http://www.newscientist.com...). Had miller not put in that trap door he would have only observed the L acids alone (but he would have had to bother going through the whole flask of water instead of taking the acid as it was produced). I should add that the meteor theory does not have this problem, because circularly polarised radiation could easily destroy one type and leave the other intact3. "Aliens" sent meteors to EarthI would have thought it pretty clear, but aliens do not send meteors to Earth. I did not mention (or believe in) aliens and this is a complete mischaracterisation of my argument. Meteors are created when two asteroids collide. Meteors get amino acids not from aliens, but from the natural process of certain random atoms floating about in outer space smashing into the meteor. If my opponent had read my source, he would have noticed that this is actually statistically likely. This has, indeed, been confirmed by the empirical evidence of meteors arriving here carrying amino acids.4. RNA is not DNAThe only major role of DNA is to store genetic information. As my source states, scientists have proven that RNA is able to do this too. While this would mean that "life" would not have been technically "living" at first, I've already told you it's trivial for RNA to turn into DNA (proven in this paper, sorry I couldn't find a full-text copy but you can read the abstract: . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov..., for an overview of the process see . http://en.wikipedia.org...).5. Scientists closeThis is an exercise in debunking false dichotomies. Life can be created by outside intelligence, but that does not (logically) mean that it cannot be created without outside intelligence. The building blocks of life may have been created naturally, but that does not mean scientists cannot be close to creating the building blocks of life artificially. I hope I'm understanding you correctly here - if not, please articulate.6. Too much oxygen nowFirst, now we have so much oxygen there is not enough carbon to bond to, so we get free oxygen. That's the difference. Now on to my own contention. .. Creationism is absurd because it requires something that isn't scientifically validatable. All your answers are true - there is a need for the causation of the universe, the laws of the universe do appear fine-tuned, and so on. There are many explanations for these things. God is one of them, but we can't test that God is the one which is right. If my opponent can prove God is the only possible cause of the universe, for instance, then of course I will believe in God. There are, however, many things that could have caused it, and it's wrong to leap at one of them as being right without evidence or, better still, proof. The existance of problems does not provide evidence for one possible solution. The burden of proof is on you (both by parsimony and Russel's teapot) to provide the evidence for. The God hypothesis is, furthermore, scientifically falsifiable. According to noted author and brilliant (Christian apologist) debater William Lane Craig, God must be "perfect (if He were to be imperfect in any respect His existence would be imperfect)" (. http://www.leaderu.com...). Two qualities of perfection are omniscience and free will. These are, however, contradictory, as knowing the future prevents you from having a truely free future choice. Another way to falsify God is to start from the quality of omnipotence. Can God create a rock so large he cannot lift it? The very notion of unlimited power is flawed. My opponent has failed to prove the most basic of his assumptions. I have defended all steps of the evolutionary model.