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

" No, that wasn't their goal...they did an experiment to find out if organic compounds could result from inorganic material."No, it started out as that, but then they changed it to try to prove evolution right when their first few experiments failed."Look up the dictionary definition of the word, you are being delusional. I do not think I am guilty."Yes, but the definition of moron is "dull witted". It's comparable to delusional."Copying and pasting large chunks just so I can refute it is lazy."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."We already know that it happened, we just do not know how."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)."This is an infinite regress problem. It does not answer the issue."Why not?"Um, no. Evolution does not tell us we evolved from apes."What? Did you just claim that??? Then why this? All evolution does is claim that we evolved from apes."It does? Perhaps I missed it, please show me where."Ah, I misread. It says the conditions are not accepted."all you do is abandon them after being proven wrong and look for new things to bring into the conversation."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.And now, to fix your complaint with my copy/paste argument, here is what I propose in my own words.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?