It was your standard:
As I’m sure you realize, you can make a metaphorical analogy between any two things with enough time and creativity. So someone being able to make a metaphorical between two things is completely meaningless.
If you disagree, then it is your burden to explain why a metaphorical analogy should be accepted, not mine to show why it shouldn’t.
Great. Your argument is essentially an inference to the best explanation already, so including a premise that is itself an inference to the best explanation is a bad idea. Especially if it isn’t really needed. Since we’re striking that premise, We can move on…
No it has not. Nor do your references support this notion.
You cite:
Richert 2018, which is a comment and not an article and does not say or even suggest that life can’t happen naturally.
Witzany 2017, which doesn’t say anything about abiogenesis
at all.
Abel 2012, which is the work of a quack who doesn’t understand basic chemistry.
If you had others on this point I missed them, feel free to add them. But it isn’t likely they are any more useful to you, given your current record.
Life is fundamentally chemical, which is material.
So was I…
You rely on your interpretation and understanding of quantum physics for this claim, and you are not qualified in the field. As previously agreed, until you are able to get an actual physicist here to vouch for your interpretation, you’ll get no traction there.
You’ll especially get no traction citing as evidence for your understanding of quantum physics an obvious buffoon like Inspiring Philosophy. Who I wouldn’t trust to properly interpret a stop sign, much less quantum field theories.
Unfortunately, your misunderstanding of, and general unfamiliarity with, quantum physics is your problem. Or rather, one of your problems.