1) True. But nobody has shown that something cannot happen the way evolution says, nor that life cannot have arisen naturally. All we seem to have is a minor sect of religiously motivated non-scientists expressing incredulity that it could be possible. That is hardly a scientific dismissal.
You are asking to prove a negative. We both know it cannot be done. It doesn't matter if idiots point out a flaw in a theory. The flaw, if valid, is cause for dismissal.
2) Ditto. It would be so, if someone were able to show evolution did not work. People are constantly finding out new things that modify and improve the theory but nobody has come along with something that blows it out of the water. Do you think otherwise and if so can you quote an example of this?
I already showed why it does not work. Any correct thinking person can do it. Specifically, things left to themselves do not go from simple to complex. Things go from complex to simple. The proof is that simple to complex would have to happen many times on a regular basis. Yet, you and I cannot find any example of it happening once.
3) You can certainly claim that the similarities predicted by evolution could have arisen due to the design practices of a creator. But that would not detract from the success of evolution in predicting them correctly, without invoking such a creator. That would make the creator an unnecessary hypothesis, as it adds nothing. (Applying Ockham's Razor, we delete unnecessary hypotheses in science.)
Where does prediction come from? I thought evolution tries to explain the way life formed, not what it will be in the future.
(In fact, the hypothesis of a creator is scientifically useless for another, more profound, reason, which is that it does not enable any predictions to be made. As I pointed out in my original (2), prediction is one characteristic of a scientific theory. No creationist theory can make any predictions whatsoever, since the creator is supernatural and can thus do what he likes, making him intrinsically unpredictable.)
Creation is beyond science. You are right with respect not being able to relate science to creation. "Scientific creation" is an oxymoron with respect to how it was done.
4) You claim that things do not go from simple to complex by themselves. That is an assertion that does not stand up: they do. Consider the formation of the Earth, with its oceans, seasons and weather, from a cosmic dust cloud. Or consider the growth of a butterfly from a butterfly egg.
It is not beyond belief that the Earth was created. Certainly it is more believable than thinking it happened by itself. Same with the butterfly.
5) Drug resistance is certainly evolution. It is the acquisition by natural selection of an advantageous characteristic for survival, by a population of organisms, in response to a challenge in the environment. That is exactly what evolution is.
Drug resistance is a mutation, which is the ability to change in a limited fashion. Mutations happening many times do not make evolution, because the changes stay within limits.
Your last comment shows you, again like most creationists, do not understand the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. They are different. There is a theory of evolution which is about, in Darwin's famous words, the "origin of species". That is what evolution explains. Note he did not say the "origin of life".
Surely you accept the fact that many folks think life arose from evolution. If not, then how? I wish I could debate Darwin. I would point out that each species has limits on what it can become.
In fact science has no theory yet for the origin of life and does not pretend that it has. It is a very exciting field of study, I think, but all we have are some tantalising hypotheses and possible pieces of the jigsaw. (One of my favourites is the recent finding that adsorption of molecules on the surface of certain types of crystal induces different reactivity depending on whether the molecule has left-handed or right-handed "chirality", as it is called. It has been known for a century or more that "handedness" in biochemical molecules is important in biology - you may perhaps have heard of "dextrose", for example, which is a right-handed glucose molecule - but nobody had any idea how handedness in biochemistry could have arisen. Now, perhaps, we have a clue.) Explaining the origin of life is going to be a huge struggle, as there is almost no evidence from that period so early in the Earth's history. Even the rocks have almost all been renewed since that time, through plate tectonic turnover.
I agree that science will never truly show that life arose by itself. Creation and science to not mix well when it comes to explaining how things got done. The handedness of biochemistry was in place when the physical laws were created and are currently sustained, Handedness did not arise, it was created. Later it was discovered by scientists.
So it is emphatically NOT "up to me" to show how non-life can be turned into life, for the simple reason that nobody knows. But science will work away at it, patiently. What science will never do is give up, say it is impossible, and invoke a supernatural creator as a cop-out.
You are right in saying it is not up to you to explain the origin of life if you are agnostic about it. From what I have seen, historical science mostly bumbles along making snail progress, and going down a lot of blind rat holes. Science should accept an ineffable creator and save itself a whole lot of work.