On the Miller-Urey experiments:
-how did they know what the initial conditions were?
-they used an unnatural method by which they 'captured' what they created.
-the proteins made from that experiment couldn't reproduce (self-replicate).
-the experiment results are a mix of 'left' and 'right-handed' but of course, need to be only one.
-'spark discharge' experiments do not create cytosine - so again, no dice.
Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine are all part of nucleotides, which are building blocks necessary for life. These experiments can't produce cytosine necessary for RNA and even if they could, it's too unstable in abiotic conditions (this means a sufficient amount would not 'stack up').
I wonder how many of us have read a serious critique of Miller-Urey. It doesn't seem prudent to just accept them as dogma and hand wave away any objections. Perhaps this will help? www.creation.com/urey
But even still, one need not look to Creationists to find searing critiques of Miller-Urey and their progeny - simply look to the pages of the Journal of Molecular Evolution and one can find similar dissatisfaction.
The list of problems with any RNA World hypothesis goes on and on. Facts like this are what led Professor Klaus Dose to say “More than 30 years of experimentation on origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either ends in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance". ('The Origin of Life', ISR 13, p. 348).
One other thing I recommend is to read some of the relevant journal articles on origin of life research by Robert Shapiro. Even a few would greatly help, as he specializes in this and can state some of these objections more elegantly and forcefully than I can.
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. In children's fairy tales, a princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince. In the adult variety, time and chance 'kiss' the void and it turns into a man. Or lightning strikes a warm pond and creates humans! This is logical? This is scientific?
Evolution is not like physics or an applied science dealing with modern day operations. It's more like forensics or a historiography question. So when one automatically equates tech advance based on science with micro mutational evolutionary theories, it's a false equivocation and therefore inaccurate.
When evolutionists make appeals to authority and genetic fallacy comments, they should not go unnoticed: it's easy to discount information contrary to your biases because you don't like the source or because it doesn't appeal to your arbitrary criterion. Degrees and journals don't equal veracity and all paradigm challenging science is greeted cooly by the status quo keepers.