Debate: We clearly share a relation/common ancestor with apes.
Side: Nope. Chuck Testa.

"I don't know if their experiments did in fact fail several times at first (do you have a source for this?)"Yes I do. Referring to an earlier post: No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller-Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.After Miller failed, he further synthesized his experiment in order to try to prove evolution.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?"LOL. Man, let me tell you, the price of college tuition has exploded in the past 20 years. According to Times Magazine, the price of college went up like 700%. I try to get money anyway I can...within the bounds of the law of course (I don't run moonshine......)."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."But the Miller Urey experiment shows us that life can't form. Again I refer to my three points: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.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. 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?"I am interested in the truth, not whatever makes me feel more comfortable."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:John 18:33-3833Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.If you were truly seeking truth, then I assume you would already be a Christian. "Your idea that evolution is above everything else in science is completely unfounded and uneducated."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?"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."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"."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."So this proves evolution how?"The results of the experiment show that organic molecules can form from inorganic material"Yes, but that doesn't mean life can form. "As for the Lithium problem, what makes you think that the Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution are related?"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. "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?"So then why don't they just do that? Why don't they just simulate those "right" conditions?"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."All right, since I'm running out of time tonight, I'll give you that for now. But I want to return to this point later.No, some bacteria use right handed amino acids."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.