It's quite telling that you failed to answer my last post (Are you a liar?). An honest person would not have sidestepped the question.
No, I am not a moron. I suspect most here already know this, but for those not quite so insightful I have no reservations pointing out the obvious.
I suspect you'll eventually realize you're out of your league in this forum. Many of us here have chased Russian Kandidats and physics PhDs away, and so it is quite serendipitous for your attention craving that no one with a truly insuperable passion is currently trolling here. But beware -- the moment a more interesting petitioner drops by your banter will suddenly become as graffiti to the rest of us: annoying, but easily overlooked.
>>>"How often do amino acids create themselves in the wild?"
Well, at least once. That is precisely the point.
Besides, a thoughtful supporter of ICR would not so carelessly throw this question around; one of the ICR's arguments is that the amino acids would have been destroyed if struck by lightning after having been created. In other words, if lightning "struck twice." The degree of improbability you identify would slip even closer to zero within ICR's proposed scenario.
Another fact the ICR identifies is that oxygen destroys non-living organic compounds. However, they neglect to mention that the concentration of oxygen would have to be many times its current level in order to be as damaging as they propose.
(Our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and only about 1/5th oxygen.)
Finally, the ICR points to the fact that scientists have not explained the "next step." The transition from amino acid to life has not been explained, and so some offer this as "proof" of creationism. This "rationale" suggests that the earth was flat until a few centuries ago, when mankind showed that it is, in fact, spherical.
This represents an awkward (and, I'm afraid, all too common) misunderstanding of scientific doctrine. The notion "if it hasn't been demonstrated, then it can't be true" is ludicrous.
Science is the search for knowledge. It is not knowledge itself. It continues to grow, and does not require the universe itself to wait for an explanation in order to be "real." If you cannot see this distinction then I'm afraid you will never genuinely appreciate why science and religion are not really at odds with one another.