Your critique is based on the fact that the Kurzweil machine will not exhibit all properties of all human beings. This is flawed: no human being exhibits all
properties of all
human beings. Each human being is unique, with unique features. What makes us human is the intersection of all properties of all human beings (leaving aside some properties / some human beings?)
So how to decide if the machine has human-like intelligence? The Touring test was suggested for that long ago, and that is what we will use. If you can not tell if the machine is human or not, it is human.
Your argument that all human beings need experience to become human is also flawed: children are human, and have little experience. Besides, experience can be gathered in very different ways. The fact that all past human beings have used the (only) method available to them (interaction with the physical world) does not mean that it is the only possible method, in the same sense that the wheel is a very useful method of locomotion.
New sensorial capabilities (highly parallelized), lots of available information, and raw processing power can go a long way to shorten the learning process. We can even put arbitrary "natural selection pressure", reduce mutation periods, increase reproduction rate, ... Running this in a virtual world, with increasing computing power, offers lots of possibilities. The time scale can be much shorter than the path we followed in the real world to reach our current state.
As a secondary critique to your pessimist tone: building an intelligent machine does not mean building an artificial human. The universe is (probably) full of intelligent beings, very different to us. Even if Kurzweil pretends to build an artificial human, that is of little interest. Building an artificial intelligence is way more useful (except for the purely emphatic tasks).http://asserttrue.blogspot.de/2013/01/this-is-how-wrong-kurzweil-is.html