Origins of life Via creation not evolution

"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."You're letting your bias interfere with actual science. It is specualtive, and dioshonest. Miller in his original experiment made thirteen, not twenty (two) amino acids. You still haven't dealt with right vs left handed amino acid problem. Again, right handed amino acids, just one, cause catastrophe to any life that mixes with left handed amino acids. That is what he brewed up, poison. Miller himself admitted his experiment failed. His newer experiments using correct atmospheric conditions also failed."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......)."Then why did you use his flawed experiment as proof? Your source isn't saying what you say it is. Oxygen would have oxidated the very amino acids. As I stated several times. Please see my sources in round three."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."You are being deceptive, and you know it. If Stanley Miller didn't hide the amino acids, they would have been destroyed by the same means he was using to make them. You are merely responding, and not correctly defending your claims. see: www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-origin.aspFinal ConclusionFACT: My opponent never showed any life being formed from non life. He has had no answers to the major problems that evolutionists admit.FACT: My opponent claims scientists are close to making life in the lab. This point derives two conclusions. You admit life has NOT yet been made. And, it takes INTELLIGENCE to make life. That is my whole point in this debate. FACT: The scientific method was disgraced in my opponents response. He used failed experiments, myth, and unproven science to make objections without relevance to the facts I presented.To my opponent: Thank you for your time. It was fun. I will send you a friend request.To the voters: There is much more evidence that I have to show evolution can't happen. Example: The minimal gene set copncept. I will leave it to the voters. In this debate, it is clear who had the most evidence without invoking myths, fabrications and fairy tales. Both sides have the same evidence. It is your starting point of how you view life that depicts your conclusions. If evolution is true, death is the hero. Darwinism has a morality level of a hitler. Lets consume the weak, so the strong survive. If God is real, he originally created all things good. If it is good, death isn't the hero. Who's your hero?Albert Einstein, who did not believe in a personal God, admitted "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." http://news.softpedia.com...