[Junior]

Only the amino acids were formed in a human designed and conducted experiment.

So, no experiment can imitate natural processes?

[trubolotta]

>So, no experiment can imitate natural processes?

Those were not contested points. That you can do something in a lab relying on natural processes is acceptable evidence for feasibility. To design the conditions for a succesful experiment and then assume that is what existed is faulty logic and not proof it did exist.

Evolution has logical points that should be considered, but it also has major gaps that you just can't sweep under the rug. Evolutionary scientists know that but the amateurs never seem to get it.

[trubolotta]

You may find this interesting. It is a pro-evolution theory site that is at least honest enough to admit the problems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.section.188

[PatrickHenry]

So, no experiment can imitate natural processes?

I think I see a need to present once more the Three Laws of Creationism, the results of decades of dedicated research:

First Law: Everything is evidence of creationism (or ID). And its corollary: Nothing supports evolution!
Second Law: Discredited arguments never die, they just get recycled ad infinitum.
Third Law: Creation science permits leaping to wild, unjustified conclusions. It's the obvious connecting- the-dots conclusions that are forbidden.

And other assorted bits of creationist wisdom:

The universe is made for life, therefore ID. Life can't arise naturally, therefore ID.

Anything done in a lab proves nothing about what happens in the wild. Anything found in the wild proves nothing unless it is reproduced in the lab.

Life on earth -- notwithstanding the obvious fact of our existence -- is impossible. Therefore something miraculous must have happened to make the impossible happen. The true creationist ignores anyone who points out that this argument is precariously hinged on the "impossibility assumption," employed only because it forces the desired conclusion.