Ok, here is a perfect example for me to give a response I could be satisfied with I would have to look at some other sources, mine or others, or reference some web site for assistance. But in lieu of that I will just wing it. So you have inorganic matter that turns into life with what heat or water

Depends on how you define "life". Self replicating molecules are essentially all that cells are - just much more complex. Full cellular "life" took tens of millions of years to develop - but that wasn't the criteria you set. You were talking about DNA and you don't get to change the criteria just because I tell you that it has been met.

But in 1952 (long time ago) Miller-Urey ran an experiment (in the lab my mom was a Lab Tech in) that RANDOMLY synthesized amino acids from a cloud of water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). about as inorganic as it gets, and known to be present in the atmosphere of earth and most planets then and more contemporaneously. The most common synthesized amino acid was glycine which is a core building block of RNA/DNA

In 1961 Joan Oro demonstrated the spontaneous synthesis of Adenine (the A in the GATC four-tuple of DNA) from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia (NH3) in water - also a known part of planetary (and primordial earth's) atmosphere.

Oro then went on in 1967 to demonstrate synthesis of the full RNA chain which was published in the proceedings of the Wakula Springs Conf of that same year

Would this be tantamount to saying stage one has no DNA in it and stage two does?

Correct.

What’s RNA? Like DNA?

Oh my f'ing A.... If you don't know the difference, how do you plan to validate texts in highly scientific nuceobase chemistry?

Micro organisms do the same else their population would die, it’s their way of producing which is a far cry from an egg and a sperm. Which animal started that new process?

Its not. Yeast or a yeastlike organism is the likely animal that started this. Bacteria can reproduce by Mitosis and Meiosis. Meiosis produces gametes - ie a sperm and an egg. Your ignorance here makes it almost impossible to communicate. You SHOULD have learned all this back in High School biology.

and this is precisely why Intelligent Design is such a crippling bit of nonsense to teach in public schools.

even creationists say that micro changes within a species is accepted and perhaps even observed. But that does not in any way demonstrate the evolution of one higher order species into another

Actually thats a rather recent retrenching on the part of creationists. They used to deny ANY genetic adaptation. Now that it has been demonstrated regularly, they had to retrench. But we know that there are cross species gene migrations, so we know that there is the ability to gain adaptations that did not exist in previous generations. This isn't a valid arguement about evolving complexity.

How on God’s green earth could any primitive animal even begin the process of the creation of an eye or an ear or a nervous system where once there was none?

This is the arguement of "irreducible complexity" which simply fails. The eye isn't "irreducibly complex". We have single-cell organisms that have chemical structures sensitive to light. These then evolve into more specific light sensing cells in things like plants, which in turn evolve into externalized light sensor compound eyes that you see in insects, that in turn evolve into movable compound eyes, inturn into lensed compound eyes inturn into Rods and cones, in turn into the differentiated structures within human eyes that are similar but different from dog, cat etc. eyes.

No one is demanding that they spontaneously appear in full completeness except maybe one of your gurus, Gould and his punctuated equilibrium theory. We just cannot swallow that any of this could in any way have occurred without God

Wrong. This is the core arguement of irreducible complexity. That there is no evolutionary genetic path that is incremental. Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with this sort of iterative genetic heritage. Instead it speaks to dramatic "leaps forward" as chance creates instances that are dramatically more effective than the competition.

Of course it stands to reason that science had to create a defense to “irreducible complexity” because it is a very reasonable position that people use in deductive thinking in all walks of life.

Sorry. the term "irreducible complexity" comes from Creationists. It is complexity. It is not irreducible.

Oh, you want us to be flexible, have an open mind? Well, what that says to me is that you have a desired goal, and we must be flexible when encountering serious gaps, enormous chasms if you will, in our journey to getting there.

Nope. I want you to reason critically. You don't. And you haven't "encountered serious gaps" - since you don't even know the diff between RNA and DNA. You are simply parroting the things said by people who's beliefs you agree with.

How about you give me an example of what evidence for the supernatural might be to you? I have been around the fray for years and on faith-based and BOTF I have provided scores of what I consider miraculous occurrences.

Same test as The Amazing Randi

• It cannot be annecdotal
• It has to be independently verifiable.
• it must do what you predict it will do (ie if you say that the hands WILL bleed- they bleed)
• It can be subject to scientific testing methodology and validation

Simply that you "consider it miraculous" is no measure of anything.

if I was in my bedroom and the plaster statue of the Virgin Mary started weeping blood from her eyes it would get my attention. I would have the statue analyzed. Then if it happened again and again in front of many eye witnesses, I would pretty much convinced God is intervening in the affairs of man. Now this very kind of phenonmenon has happened to hundreds of statues in front of thousands of witnesses

No it has not. There is no documentaiton that ANY of these statues were credibly analyzed. You offer anecdotal claims that they were so analyzed.

The best they can come up with is that these are clever tricks devised by nuns or everyone is lying

Nope. Strawman arguement. Picking the weakest arguements is cheap. One of the best counters is that when skeptical independent researchers come to investigate, invariably these phenomenon dissappear. That's the best example that these are not "analyzed".

You want other miracles? Tell me what occurred at Fatima and if you say mass hallucination I will tell you that you have not considered all the cross examination

Sorry. not credible. No actual empirical evidence.

Tell me how over the course of 20 different summer nights in 1968 no less than 250,000 Egyptians saw an illuminated woman walking on a Coptic Cathedral in Zeitoun blessing the crowd and bowing before the cross

As I pointed out before, you don't even have evidence there were 250,000 people there, much less that they saw the same thing. Sorry you lack any evidence that this happened the way you claim it did. No video, no film no photographs. And its not like in 1968 cameras were so rare that 250,000 egyptians would not have a single camera amongst them.

Tell me that Shroud of Turin is a fake, surely you heard of the carbon testing in the 1980’s who the three labs all said it was a cloth from the 13th century? Did you ever follow up on those claims?

What does this mean "follow up on those claims"? You mean like the scientists that demonstrated how this image could be created in linen? rather easily?

I am too “tired” (as you put it) to begin to list all of the qualities and evidence found on that cloth that in NO WAY NO CHANCE could any 13th century forger ever be able to create.

You are again confused. the fact that the cloth dates from 1260 doesn't mean that's when the fraud was done. Its not unusual for counterfeiters to use old materials but using modern techniques. Its interesting how you are always "too tired" when it comes to actually providing the kind of information that is directly refutable. Odd that.

Go sit in on a Catholic exorcism and tell me Satan is not real. Go explain to me how a 10 year old girl can show super human strength, levitate off the bed for 30 minutes, make furniture move in the room, spew vulgar blasphemies in a guttural language, speak in foreign languages she in no way could have ever known, and then tell witnesses in the room hidden facts about their past she could have NEVER known!

All of this has been done. In Junior High, some school friends and I did a 'seance' where using hypnotic suggestion (we didn't know that was what it was at the time) "levitated" each of us. Everything else is similarly explainable. I'd have no problems concluding that Satan is not real.

When the question is asked “how many miracles must there before you believe in God?” the answer is always understood as “One more than we currently have.”

Well yes. Because we currently have ZERO.