Sorry, what "risk" am I at? If you have "specific answers," then surely you must be able to explain those answers. I could say I have an answer for any problem, but you'd want me to fully exlain it. You are horribly abusing science, you just scatter in a few mentions of genetics into your ramblings to try and give them a sense of scientific support, yet you refuse to go into any further detail.
I don't need to prove it. I'm not making a positive assertation. To take a well used example, do you believe that there is a teapot orbitting the Sun? If not, prove to me that it doesn't exist. If you can't prove that it doesn't, then by your logic you cannot claim so.
No! You haven't answered the question! I asked how a gene allows for a soul. "All life can host a soul" is not an answer, it's just dismissing the question. If you asked me how genes allow for a child to have a certain eye colour, I would be able to give a simple explanation of the mechanisms involved (don't ask for anything more complicated, I'm not an expert, but I reckon I could do eye colour.) Now, you are claiming that genes "allow" for a soul. I am now asking you to explain the mechanism.Where abouts in the body actually is this soul then? Is is scattered throughout?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thinking that my genes are similar to my parents is not a claim that would be seen as surprising by anyone. It wouldn't change anyone's philosophy, it wouldn't change our current knowledge of science. However, if there was evidence for the soul in genes, that would make a lot of our science wrong. It would also change a lot of people's outlook on life. Therefore, because you are making such an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. You certainly need some evidence, and as yet you have not offered any.
You misunderstand skeptics. My feet are not set in concrete, I just need some kind of evidence before I accept a proposition that changes my entire outlook on life.
Incorrect. You can see plenty of records of the Titanic. True, you may not have actually seen the Titanic itself, but you assume that it exists, that it sunk, the whole story etc. because to assume otherwise would mean to assume that a giant conspiracy is taking place. That's another extraordinary claim. There is nothing suspicious about the claim that the Titanic exists, because the people who tell you that it does are perfectly willing to show you evidence if you want. They're not evasive. You on the other hand, are very evasive and very unwilling to give any sort of evidence whatsoever.