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

EDIT: Wtf people, who up voted this? I accidentally clicked submit early. GeneralLee please respond to this second one. No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed.They didn't try to prove evolution correct after several experiments failed. I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?), but if it were failing, I imagine the following experiments were fine tuning of earth's early atmosphere. I suppose it would seem so, but I just finished 84 consecutive work hours (72 hours in the previous week alone). I didn't necessarily have time to arrange my argument properly on the website, so I wouldn't necessarily call myself "lazy". Now I am typing my arguments into Microsoft Word and pasting them to the website from there. That way, you won't have to worry about this type of situation any more.I believe I said your action was lazy, not you yourself. And even if I had called you lazy, was I supposed to somehow just know you worked 84 consecutive work hours? Believing in something for which you don't even know how it happened? And you call me crazy?? Wow, you got issues because you said you belief was based off of fact not faith. Without that "how" you are relying on faith. You are no longer trying to prove evolution false, as in your first argument; but trying to prove it true contrary to science (which supports my "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god" claim).It is not a reliance on faith, for that would imply unjustified belief. The Miller Urey experiment shows us that organic molecules can form from inorganic materials, so we already know that life can form from inorganic matter. What we don't know is how it exactly formed on Earth billions of years ago. Scientists have lots of ideas, and they continue to do research on the subject to this very day. So how you accuse me of having an unjustified belief, I do not know. I am not trying to prove evolution true just to satisfy my own personal conclusion. I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable. The science points overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, not creationism. As for evolution being contrary to science which supports "science being secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god", that is complete nonsense. The theory of evolution is beneath the scientific method. If you or anyone on this planet could prove the theory of evolution wrong, you would win a Nobel Peace Prize among a mountain of other achievements. Science rewards challenging established beliefs. Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated. You've become a victim of creationist propaganda. Why not?It raises the question "who created god?". To which you and other creationists reply "Well, god doesn't need a cause. He has always been there". This is just special pleading, otherwise we can say that the universe has been here forever. Equal argument. What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes.This is equivocation on your part. You're using the term ape and pig as if they are singular species. Ape refers to a group of primates. I have already said before that humans have a common ancestry with every single other species. Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted.Correct. The only thing contested in the Miller Urey experiment is the initial conditions of early Earth. The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material, that is not contested by anyone in the scientific community as far as I am aware. Sounds like something you did. Like with my argument on Polystrate fossils, or statistical probability for evolution. In fact, there is tons of questions that evolution can't answer. Like The Lithium Problem. According to the Big Bang, there should be 66% MORE Lithium-7 in the universe. Or what about Missing Antimatter? The Big Bang created more matter than anti-matter. This imbalance doesn't fit any evolutionist theory. Yeah, like I said, you believe in evolution despite the scientific contradictions.I remember you bringing up the Polystrate fossils, but I thought I told you I was not familiar with them? I didn't abandon it, I just told you straight up I didn't know anything about them. If something different happened, please let me know. As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related? And how does anti matter tie in with evolution and natural selection? These "scientific contradictions" you bring up don't have anything to do with evolution. One of the reasons the Miller Urey experiment is false and disproves evolution is because he only produced less than half of the amino acids needed for life. You claim that this proves evolution, but it doesn't because they were NOT able to produce the other half.Remember where the scientists are all in agreement that the conditions for early earth in the Miller Urey experiment were likely wrong? Did it ever occur to you that if they had simulated the correct conditions, that a high enough amount of amino acids would have formed? It doesn't prove evolution. It proves that abiogenesis is possible. Basic building blocks of life were created out of inorganic materials. Perhaps the conditions that the Miller Urey experiment used were relatively unfavorable for life to form. But maybe with the appropriate conditions of early earth, a larger number of amino acids and other organic molecules would have formed thus making it favorable for life to thrive? This is why the Miller Urey experiment proves that abiogenesis is possible. Second, scientist cannot explain how we got an oxygen-rich atmosphere. How can you say "evolution is a fact", and then not explain how we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere which is necessary for life.Because evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. Evolution works through natural selection and other environmental and genetic factors. Abiogenesis is the study of how life formed from inorganic materials. Therefore evolution can be a fact even if scientists cannot explain how we have an oxygen rich atmosphere. Do not confuse abiogenesis with the theory of evolution. The latter of which has far more evidence and is amongst the most comprehensive of theories in science. Third, what about the fact that nearly all amino acids that must be used in proteins must be left-handed? The experiment produced equal quantities of both left and right handed molecules. And right handed ones are not only useless, but also lethal. So explain that?No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids. 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. What you keep missing is that the Miller Urey experiment proved one thing, that organic molecules can form through inorganic material. So perhaps the conditions in the experiment were not perfect or ideal for life, but even in that less than ideal state the experiment still managed to produce amino acids.