I do understand, you saying I can’t judge people as well-informed implies you think it’s important and reasonable and good to do that. That was my point.
I think I am usually quite coherent, and I assure you I don’t fear evidence. So I need a demonstration of what I said that was incoherent, and another claim of knowing my motives, does not explain how you know my motives.
I’m not claiming all atheists say that! And I was talking about some unspecified atheist. Some I would call agnostics, saying they don’t know of any good evidence, or that they just have no opinion, as if the question doesn’t interest them. But Merriam-Webster defines atheism as this: “a person who does not believe in the existence of God or any gods”. Which does seem to imply a commitment to a conclusion. And some atheists, from what they have said, would I think subscribe to my statement. You may apply it to yourself, if it fits.
I have no idea of your exact position, I’m claiming that a definite claim that there is no God or gods, involves you in some astonishing conclusions from this view. I would be interested in hearing your reply, though, if that is your view.
That is not my view, though.
Saying I’m hypocritical is not in any way examining my reasoning, it’s implying what I say should be rejected, because I’m pretending to be sincere. That’s an attack on my character, it’s an ad hominem.
Yes, but what you all point to is my character, and not my reasoning. You deduce nothing from my reasoning, you do not even mention it. I agree, the first is an ad hominem, it is what you all do.
??? So what did you mean by “his analogy”?
So how is this not an attack on my character? How is this examining my reasoning? You don’t examine it. That is the definition of ad hominem. I’m getting tired of this.
And I pointed out that their research is easily shown to be absurd. That was the point I was arguing for.
Sure, I didn’t say organisms, I said molecules, OOL starts with molecules! This article does not refute my claim.
But the way to demonstrate the materialist view, is to quote a materialist, describing his view.
Well, again, examining the materialist view involves examining what prominent materialists say about their view. Good grief…
No, I mentioned another aspect, all this off the top of my head, I could probably come up with more. Here’s another, he was a leader in his department, also, he was working for a Nobel Prize winner, who probably evaluated his work and credentials before hiring him, have you done something comparable?
But has your paper been subjected to intense scrutiny? That was part of the question. And where, I ask yet again, has Axe’s paper been refuted? Please point to the post where there is a question or challenge that has proven unanswerable.
I’ve given reasons, and added to them, glad to see your metrics, and hear what you have done.
Organisms again! But again, that’s nothing to do with OOL, that’s about molecules in isolation, not molecules in organisms.
I do know, it’s an energy source, it is used to run ATP synthase, for example. And pointing to ATP being incorporated into a chain, like a nucleotide, is not an example of what it does in living things, I’m open to being shown how it is, but nobody has done that.
A host! But your examples you gave don’t hold up. Please try some more…