So I was not previously familiar with your style of going through others' posts and declaring right and wrong with apparent confidence and authority, but not much argument. I'm not sure how to respond to that. For example, you are welcome to your opinion that I mischaracterised materialism as involving circular reasoning, but I don't agree. I don't know there is much more to say about it unless you elaborate.
Well, first, I don't "declare" you wrong. I simply point out that you are based on evidence. It's no different that if you were claiming 2+2=5.
Second, I didn't make any claim that you mis-characterized materialism. I said, quite accurately, that what you claim were assumptions inherent in Cofty's arguments are nothing of the sort.
Third, your quote refuting that obvious fact was, in fact, a snippet from an article on naturalism, something very different, which also is based on an incorrect premise, namely this: " Naturalism’s claim that, by confining itself to purely material explanations for all things, it adheres to the only sure path of verifiable knowledge is nothing but a feat of sublimely circular thinking: physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics, which we know because physics explains everything."
That's one of the most absurd things I have ever read. And it's wrong. It's little more than an attempt to undermine science by making the same mistake you did, mis-labeling what circular reasoning is and being far less than honest about what science is and how it works.
How can science ever "show" that life doesn't come from God?
Ooh, ooh! Strawman alert! Science doesn't seek to show that, nor was that in any way Cofty's point.
Not content with misrepresenting your own OP, you now deny the plain meaning of WT comments on the feasibility of scientists creating living cells from non-living matter
Oh my, you are accusing Cofty of doing EXACTLY what you are doing. This is what happens when you use pseudo-intellectualism and dishonesty to try to make a gap to wedge god in. SBF gets caught. Again.
You apparently misunderstood JW teaching as meaning there is a theological barrier to scientists ever creating life from non-living matter.
What is a "theological barrier"?
In any event, all of your arguments, ever-changing as they may be, are based on wrong assertions, mislabeling and outright untruths. So, that's why it's easy to say "you're wrong". Next time you try this, you might want to know something about the subject and not try it on people who actually know something about science and philosophy.