Show me one stinkin' example where I said that.
and argue for life from non-life.
I could equally argue that one-cells, or unisexuals, or prokariotes, are non-life, because they don't look like us, play bridge, or pay taxes. If life ramped up from basic beginnings in constrained, mildly ordered natural environments akin to Conway's game of Life, then your claims about life-vs-non-life are just spurious word-games. At some point, unlifelike automata turned into lifelike automata. Where that supposed barrier is, differs depending on what criteria for "real" life you have arbitrarily chosen.
And, at any rate, life evolving from non-life, at any point, in no manner refutes the notion that God is ultimately responsible for the existence of life. Science can only address proximate causes, not ultimate causes.
...
This life/non-life barrier is an example of thinking that human lexical conveniences are tangible physical things. An excluded middle fallacy pioneered by the creationists in regards to the fossil record. The life/non-life barrier is a human classification game, not a real thing with tangible natural attributes.
So it seems that if you believe in God, it is a powerless one.
Why can't you ever track this argument? Obviously not powerless; how could a powerless God create polio? - evil, cruelly, sadistically evil -- got it?
Regardless, you are just trying to avoid the atheist label by playing games. Your attitude towards religion is completely the same as that of an atheist.
Well, now, an attitude plus $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. when it comes to putting labels on people regarding their metaphysical philosophies, it is appropriate to examine their philosophies, not their "attitudes". I obviously am not an athiest, because I obviously don't maintain the fundamental tenate of athiesm--that God categorically does not exist.
I could equally argue that one-cells, or unisexuals, or prokariotes, are non-life, because they don't look like us, play bridge, or pay taxes. If life ramped up from basic beginnings in constrained, mildly ordered natural environments akin to Conway's game of Life, then your claims about life-vs-non-life are just spurious word-games. At some point, unlifelike automata turned into lifelike automata. Where that supposed barrier is, differs depending on what criteria for "real" life you have arbitrarily chosen.
You obviously are trying to confuse the issue. You have often argued very strongly for abiogenesis. As to games and other nonsense about life from non-life there are none that can surmount the problems against it that real science has shown.
As to your atheism, I see no difference in your writings from those of atheists. Like you they also hate God.