No, his argument is even simpler than that. Chemists, biochemists and molecular scientists in the most advanced laboratory setups cannot even synthesize a living cell, even if you supply all the necessary ingredients. They cannot even synthesize RNA, an absolute necessary for a cell to function. They are not even close.
And what I found very interesting is his definition of life, something you all feel you must ridicule. He gave the text book definition of abiogenesis and a living entity. This is also what I learnt in my studies.
Abiogenesis: Origin of life from living matter. And a living entity must:
1) Be responsive to its environment.
2) Grow and change.
3) Be able to reproduce.
4) Have a metabolism and breathe.
5) Maintain homeostasis (steady internal physical and chemical condition)..
6) Be made up of cells.
7) Be passing traits to offspring.
Like your elder friend, if they accomplish the above, I will become a believer. But I will still believe in a Creator, because then man has become a "creator." Feel free to give your definition of a living entity, I'm all ears. I thought you all might want to criticize the above and give your own definition. As you'll notice, this is a tall order. One must be very brave to do research on the origin of life. But you must inform your elder friend, he must watch out what he wishes for. With CRISPR technology, this is quite possible. With the geneticists the sky is the limit.
Cofty, do give us more to wet our appetites. Ad hominem attacks don't do anything for me, I'm afraid. Be specific.