> The formation of etc. etc.
That was quite a leap of faith. The real evolutionist acknowledge that proving the composition of the early atmosphere is a problem. It is conjecture and the reason they looked at the space origin theory as another alternative. As for going from amino acids to RNA or DNA, it has not been done in the lab (if it has, link please and I will graciously withdraw my statement). Only the amino acids were formed in a human designed and conducted experiment. I accept the validity of the experiment, but I don't accept the underlying assumptions of the experiment without reasonable proof. Who should I believe, you or the leading evolutionists?
> The real evolutionist acknowledge that proving the composition of the early atmosphere is a problem.
Only insofar as "proving" that the sun is very far away is a problem. It is not up to evolutionists to "prove" what the early atmosphere was like... chemists, physicists and astronomers have done that already.
> Who should I believe, you or the leading evolutionists?
Believe the facts. The universe is filled with just what's needed to spark life.
So, no experiment can imitate natural processes?