>>14275371>Should I continue?Continue with what? Not a single one of those is a lie. Please provide one I'm waiting.
>By your own source, it is. No no no no. My sources never listed it among what it studies. Try again.
>You responded to my pointing out that there is an entire article about abiogenesis with a non sequitur about the article on biochemistry. If you aren't saying I claimed that, then you admit your response is a non sequitur. Thanks. So you can't quote me saying that it's just your mentally ill conjecture. Thanks.
>No, synthetic chemists knows less about abiogenesis than biochemists, because abiogenesis requires an understanding of biology Abiogenesis requires an understanding of synthetic chemistry ROFL. You are just going in circles and randomly stopping when you feel like it supports your bullshit. I even gave you a link showing abiogenesis going to be artificially made by advances due to synthetic chemists. Where is your link showing it will be done by biochemists????
>Biochemists who study biorenewables are experts, yes. Who else?Experts on what? Please finish the sentence sophist.
>Defending your claim is not spoonfeeding, sophistThen why do you say it's spoonfeeding when I ask to defend your claims about the need to be an expert in biochem to explain abiogen?? You just tell me to watch good ole expert Dave. Why are you such a hypocrite?
>>14275371>you lie and then fail to defend your lie?Please show me where I lied I can't find a single one.
