I wouldn't call it an argument, it's just pointing out facts.
quote: We're not talking about whose idea it is.
I guess that you don't understand the implications. Repeating common knowledge isn't an argument.
quote: you're wrong in your facts, but this is not the place for that argument.
So if reality contradicts your opinions, reality is wrong ?
quote: Anyway, what matters is: whether evolution (methodological naturalism) can explain the first 'replicators', as you call them.
What do you think?
I think that you should make up your mind whether you mean "evolution" or "science". Methodological naturalism includes a lot of things that aren't evolution. Evolution can't explain the first replicators, by the very nature of evolution. However, there is every reason to think that science will eventually come up with a possible explanation.
quote: I don't see why not. "Every reason to think" includes "based on the fact that science has solved many apparently intractable problems, and the fact that we have no evidence that indicates a naturalistic explanation is not possible, and the fact that we have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that a naturalistic explanation is possible." Those are reasons to think....
Since I explicitly told him that there was no claim to certainty before he asserted otherwise it is quite clear that he is blatantly lying. Dishonest as creationists are it is unusual for them to be quite so obvious about it. Hence, the conclusion that he is a troll.