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

Then why are all scientific experiments, such as the Miller Urey experiment, attempts to prove evolution true?All scientific experiments are attempts to prove evolution true? No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material. It just so happens the results favor evolution more than creationism. That might as well be posted on every evolutionist website, since they do everything that they can to push God out the door science or not. So no, you didn't refute it; I'm not satisfied.This makes no sense. There isn't any scientific evidence for god, that's the only reason why scientists do not include god in their theories. You can remain unsatisfied then, I provided you with information for why they are not reputable websites. All you want to do is turn the argument around as if it somehow works both ways. There's a problem with that, I do not know of a single scientific organization that says "science is secondary to the gospel of evolution in order to make man god". Here is your mission, should you choose to accept it ;) Find me a scientific website that values evolution above science. Ad hominem; I feel special too. You know, you shouldn't accuse other people of things you are guilty of...Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty.This is an example of a straw man argument. You are attacking Creation.com rather than the argument they present.Do you even know what a straw man argument is? The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.The reason why I chose not to dissect your little post is because it would be time consuming, and because it would be no different than dissecting and refuting the chicken scratch of a 3rd grader. Are you really unable to propose the argument in your own words? Is it just too difficult for you to even comprehend the nonsense you copy and paste from the websites you cite? Comprehend the material before you post it. Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy. Because once I finish refuting it, you'll abandon the argument and go find some other large paragraph and I'll have to refute that as well. It eventually turns into me doing all the reading, research, and thinking where as all you have to do is spend 2 minute typing in a google search, copying and pasting relevant material, throwing in a few smart remarks, then submitting the post. First question: Prove it!Second question: God created us.First question: We already know that it happened, we just do not know how. Second question: This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue. Because evolution tries to tell us as fact that we evolved from apes when we may as well have evolved from pigs.Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes. Different species did not evolve into other different species in todays world. For example, a present day pig did not evolve into a present day human. You are looking at it the wrong way. We share a common ancestor with pigs, horses, bats, cockroaches, fungi, sponges, gorillas etc. You do realize that you own post says that it is no longer widely accepted right? Looks like you just shot yourself in your other foot.It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where. Are you going to provide a rebuttal for my post concerning the Miller Urey argument as being proof that evolution is false or not? If not, then I do not think you have a rational enough mind to handle debate.No, I am not going to provide a rebuttal to your creationist website. I've already refuted a few of your claims, all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation. You are too closed minded to have a rational, thoughtful debate.