[[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?