Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Yep.

After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution.So Miller faked the results then by synthesizing the amino acids? Do you have a source for this? But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points:I've already refuted all three of those points in my previous post. The experiment produced amino acids, a basic building block of life. With the right early earth conditions, what would stop those amino acids from forming into life? You didn't address any of my responses that I gave to your three "points" refuting the Miller Urey experiment. Doubt it, I bet you feel uncomfortable reading the Bible. Yet I can read Darwin's Origins of Species without breaking a sweat. Remember the questioning of Jesus by Pontious Pilate:I don't feel uncomfortable reading the bible at all. I read it frequently online. One day I hope to read the whole thing front to back. The stories in the bible have no basis upon which to know the truth. Your story about Jesus and Pontious Pilate has no bearing on the truth. If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian.You make this presupposition on what grounds? That christianity is automatically true/correct? I am genuinely seeking the truth, and that quest for the truth has lead me to believe that no "higher power" of any sort exists. I do not assert that no god exists, I simply have found no evidence whatsoever that would support God's existence. Really, didn't some famous scientist say that to believe in Christianity was "unthinkable"; so he wouldn't even study to see if it could be true? Wasn't that Hawking?That may have been Richard Dawkins. If I remember correctly (and I may be misquoting him or attributing it to the wrong person), he said something along the lines of "one does not need to read superman comics to disbelieve in superman", this argument extends to the bible and God/Jesus. You use this argument anyways when you try to explain where the matter from the Big Bang came from. Scientists say it just was "always there".No, as far as I am aware scientists currently do not know where all matter came from or what started the big bang or if it even had a beginning. The whole nature of the beginning of everything is shrouded in mystery, with research currently being done on the subject. If we take your approach, we automatically assume it's god, and then all scientific research into this field stops, because we already "know" it's god. This kind of mind set can have a halting effect on scientific progress, if we automatically assume every gap in scientific knowledge was automatically God. A gap in scientific knowledge is nothing more than a gap, it is not a gap for God to claim credit for. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to a question. The inability to answer a question about the beginning of existence does not give credit to the idea of God. So this proves evolution how?I don't think we were talking about proving evolution, you were talking about how if pigs are our closest ancestor instead of apes, that would somehow automatically disprove evolution. So tell me, if that were true, how would it disprove evolution? It would still mean macro evolution happens, and that natural selection works. Everything would be the same, the only difference would be that instead of being descendents of apes and other primates we would be descendents of pigs. How does this disprove evolution? Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form.The formation of organic molecules from inorganic matter is the first step. This is why I said scientists don't know exactly how it happened. So while it doesn't automatically confirm that life itself formed automatically from the experiment, it does show that the molecules necessary for life can form spontaneously from inorganic material with the right conditions. Without the Big Bang theory, there is no theory of evolution. So if you are willing to give that up, you might as well convert to Christianity.The Theory of Evolution is completely independent of the Big Bang Theory. So even if the big bang theory were proven false tomorrow, the theory of evolution would not be affected. And even if both theories were proven false tomorrow, what reason would I have to believe in Christianity? So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions?Research is still being done even as we type our responses on this site. Well, that's all fine and great, but you still haven't touched on the fact that all life nowadays uses left handed amino acids, and right handed ones are lethal.Yes I have. I responses with the following which you ignored: Perhaps with the right early earth conditions, the appropriate proportion of left and right handed amino acids would be present to kick start the beginning of life on earth.Do you have a source that declares them lethal?