As I said before, I thought the topic here was Williams' paper. You seem to want to argue that his reasoning must be valid because he comes to the right conclusion. We were invited to examine what GGG considers an "airtight" argument. I've chosen to deal with that specific question, and my conclusion is that Williams' argument is logically flawed and based on false premises. There are plenty of other topics for arguing the "main central issues."
[[As I said before, I thought the topic here was Williams’ paper. You seem to want to argue that his reasoning must be valid because he comes to the right conclusion. We were invited to examine what GGG considers an “airtight” argument. I’ve chosen to deal with that specific question, and my conclusion is that Williams’ argument is logically flawed and based on false premises. There are plenty of other topics for arguing the “main central issues.”]]
the one point does NOT invalidate the whole- the central issues- The discussion wasn’t about whether it’s airtight- the issue is whether or not naturalism can account for chemical purity, and whehter metainfo can arise naturally in living systems despite htere being a lack of info i nthe first place IF macroevolution were a possibility and htings evolved naturally.
you have chosen to ignore hte central issues- GGG made it clear that he was askign about these central claims and whether or not they could be refuted numerous times, but you have contented yourself and resigned yourself to apaprently accepting that hte paper must be invalid as a whoel because a few irrelevent points are not compeltely accurate evidently?
(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.
While in the other thread GGG did state he velt it might be an airtight case, this thread is abotu htese two central issues
[[Polanyi argued that living organisms have a machine-like structure that cannot be explained by (or reduced to) the physics and chemistry of the molecules of which they consist.]]
What is beign discussed in htis htread is whether “All of these links are also ‘choreographed’ by information—a phenomenon that never occurs in the natural environment.” You have tried to take the discussion from living systems to non living systems, and hten claim it pokes holes in the argument, just as Polanyi claimed Grammar poked holes in the idea that livign metainfo couldn’t arise naturally. The individual steps of language however are not the metainfo we’re discussing in livign systems, however, metainfo can deal with any one of htose steps to help preserve the species IF those steps include an advantage for the living system/species- it’s late- I’m tired, will think this htrough more tomorrow with a fresher mind