>>>"What didn't I answer?"
I supplied you with proof of that which you denied exists (an explanation for the beginning of evolution). No matter how wrong you think the idea is, you cannot stick to the assertion that evolutionists "have no idea" without being dishonest.
>>>"you took so long to reply I was getting worried."
Sorry, but you're not quite captivating enough for me to anxiously cling to your every word. I appreciate your passion, but don't flatter yourself... your arguments are quite innocuous (and creationist cookie-cutter). Easily dismissed in minimal time, and with a few keystrokes.
>>>"How convienient (sic) for you. If Stanley just recreated normally occuring (sic) compounds, wouldn't life create itself quite frequently? Not just once?"
What is a "normally" occurring compound? And you're again equating "one" to "none" (if it happened once, then it is a notable event. If it didn't happen at all, then we'd probably not be discussing it right now).
Not sure where you learned about logic (or if you've even heard of it), but if you insist on using such irrational debating standards I'm afraid you'll have find a more illogical opponent to challenge. Perhaps the sound of your dryer's spin cycle could match the substance of your keen witticisms. ;)
>>>"What if there was more oxygen a long time ago? Just a theory..." "Evidentally (sic) everyone in this forum understands the meaning of
science except for me."
The latter part of the above quote quite accurately (though unintentionally) describes the former. A mere guess is not a theory, no matter who says it.