"I haven't observed it, so it doesn't happen". That argument is specious on so many levels...
The real trouble with creationist arguments is that if they actually bothered to get a scientific education, they'd realize on their own that 90% of their arguments are a crock. The other 10% actually require a response from scientists -- which scientists have given. There hasn't been a new creationist argument (that I've seen) since the 70's at least. Could be before that, but that's when I started paying attention. And every single one
of those arguments (the ones that aren't so scientifically illiterate that they just leave you speechless) have been answered. All the creationists do is wait a while and come back and re-post the same things again.
So, are they saying that the early earth was covered in peanut butter? There've been experiments done where scientists have put a bunch of raw chemicals in a container, applied energy in the form of electricity, and gotten complex biochemicals out. Creationists will immediately point out that this isn't life
. To which I respond that it also wasn't going on for millions of years. How much do you expect for 1/2 hour of zapping? Also and more to the point, the central thesis of the creationist rant (listen to the vid again) is the impossibility of spontaneous creation of complexity given simple components and energy input. Since that's been demonstrated to actually happen, seems to me that an intellectually honest opponent would re-appraise their stance. Just doesn't happen.