first of all cyanide and formaldehyde are not the only things that were created and also are not poisonions to all life. For example cynaide is a neuro toxin, do you really think that a neuro toxin would affect things like bacteria. I am not sure exactly how formaldehyde is poisonous although "fry proteins" doesn't sound very technical and I doubt it could destroy all proteins and i don't think bacteria would care about embryos. Also yes it is true that there was alot of carbon monoxide in the air back then, but the gasses they had in the container were in the atmosphere back then. the point of the experiment was to proove that these molecules could be created in conditions that would be found. Adding more gasses would have made it take longer, and the scientists didn't want to wait a billion years or so for these thigns to form.
Also as for the cell argeument. Scientists arn't saying it all happened in one event. A very simple molecule formed first, and then it changed and became more complicated. As for making a cell itself, ie. the idea of membranes inside of membranes. the method for which this is believed to have happened isn't very complicated. Cell membranes are made up mostly of a bunch of molecules (forgot their name) which have a hydrophobic and a hydrophillic end. if these molecules are allowd to sit in water they will form a sphere with the hydrophobic end inside. One can actually se this happen and it doesn't take very long.
your salt example doesn't actually mean anything, sorry.
As for the beetle, yes they adapted, through mutation. Their genes mutated so that they would no longer grow wings. Your idea of treating genetic code as information for making stuff that has to be "learned" is flawed. For example if you created a computer program that would randomly create letters eventually you would get patterns that would be words and maybe even a sentence. Lets say that after a period of time the computer says "the pen is red". Just by chance. and there is a red pen. The computer didn't learn anything, although it is correct.
That may have been a bad analogy although my point is this. it is not like the flies ancestors (before wings developed) had to "know" how to make wings for their species to evolve to create them. Random mutations with small changes created something like for example some of their legs flattened. Then further mutations made the flat area bigger and moved the leg up and it eventually became wings, although the main point is that every mutation on the way to becomming wings benifited the flies a little bit (prehaps they could jump farther). Now of course I don't know if flies legs actually turned into wings in this manner, this is just an example.
The truth is that all scientific facts at the very least make sense because they are based on logic and evidence. The only way that one could disprove something that is considered to be fact is for them to supply evidence that proves it to be incorrect. Now I don't know everything so who knows maybe you will be able to trick me, but even if i can't answer somethign you say that doesn't make science wrong. (just a note for the future of this conversation)
Also a personal side note, just if you are curious. If I could choose between religion and what science says. as in my decision would determine what is actually true. I would choose religion.