DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

 
I didn't necessarily agree or disagree with either of your assertions.  You tried to validate something that is inconclusive by stating it was conclusive and that nobody has invalidated this man's findings.  Okay, well maybe nobody tried?  Regardless, and even if someone has tried, you're discussing how something may (or may not) have arisen.  Just because the chemist has an idea that was a possibility doesn't make it conclusive as to how that subject had arisen.  His studies could be 100% valid in how he performed him and the results he found, but that doesn't make the results conclusive as an explanation for the past.

IMO (subjective), you're both "jumping the gun" with your assertions.  (My bad assertion is better than your bad assertion, so mine must be right)

What does that have to do with my understanding of chemistry?  Nothing!

Next.

Ah, a weasel at work.
CDF47 claimed his position was that his code could not arise naturally and that this was conclusive. 
Other than pointing out what he said, and that your position was NOT the same as his, I (personally) claimed nothing was conclusive, or otherwise.
Thus you are a liar.  

The chemist does NOT say ANYTHING is conclusive, (only "possible") and YOU HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT. No one claimed the chemist claims "conclusive". 
CDF47 is the one claiming "conclusive" ... and that position is WRONG as the "possible" chemistry has been demonstrated. You can't refute it.

I do get you *need* the page turned, ("next") as you cannot address the CHEMISTRY, (neither can CDF47). Nice try.

If either of you can refute Szostak's chemistry/biochemistry ... go ahead... otherwise, guess what ? 
You get to STFU. You are BOTH incompetent to say anything further about the subject.

You would do better to go back to your prayers, and talk to your imaginary friends.
You have spend at least two hours in prayer today have you not ?
Have you ?