You response was a direct reply to AFJÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s post (as I provided). You may want to go back and read it before you proceed.
I know who I have replied to, including yourself. I initially raised the abiogenesis hypotheses based on Mama's post (it wouldn't change what I have written based on who I was replying to).
The above is a faith statement, and nothing more unless you provide empiric evidence of life arising from inanimate matter in the Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalisticÃ¢â‚¬Â manner you suggest.
I have already stated that abiogenesis is as yet hypotheitical.
Again, another faith statement; and an illogical one at that. The question was Ã¢â‚¬Å“Where did the Ã¢â‚¬Å“FirstÃ¢â‚¬Â molecule get the code to self-replicate?Ã¢â‚¬Â You may want to look up the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“inherentÃ¢â‚¬Â prior to replying.
I know what "inherent" means. The code is the structure of the first molecule.
If you are going to make a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â evidences for said statements. In other words; Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying it so, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it soÃ¢â‚¬Â. And your style of equivocation will not last long here.
All you are providing is opinion. If you are going to make a Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the Ã¢â‚¬Å“factualÃ¢â‚¬Â evidences for said statements. In other words; Ã¢â‚¬Å“saying it so, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make it soÃ¢â‚¬Â. Again, your style of equivocation will not last long here.
Quantum mechanics is one of the most successfully predictive theories in science, do you really want me to provide evidence for it?
The "factual statement" I wrote: "You know the evidence Ã¢â‚¬â€œ phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column - but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified." You have posted here for long enough, do you really want me to provide evidence that you are familiar with the argumnets for evolution?
Where and how have I equivocated? To equivocate is to fudge a definition. Accusing someone of equivocation is not some magic bullet you can use whenever you are not inclined to engage with what has been posted.
You may want to read the forum rules one more time before you go off on dishonest rants like that.
What rant? You asked me "does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? "
Is equivocation all youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re providing in this discussion?
No, I've directly answered all your questions.