To: VadeRetro
"Have fun fulfilling this part of the prediction. You will have to anticipate every possible scenario for unguided abiogenesis."
That part is what makes it falsifiable. We do not need every possible scenario, just one, proving my hypothesis wrong.
Meanwhile, every instance in which people are able to assemble life (when and if this actually happens) will serve to support the hypothesis.
It is testable and falsifiable. Is it simplistic? Maybe. But simplicity is usually regarded as a plus for scientific propositions. Is it elegant? Perhaps, like beauty, this is in the eye of the beholder.
Until some other evidence is found to support abiogenesis or some deviation in the laws of causality, there is no competing hypothesis explaining the origin of life.
2,176 posted on
12/22/2005 9:50:51 AM PST by
unlearner
(You will never come to know that which you do not know until you first know that you do not know it.)
To: unlearner
That part is what makes it falsifiable. Oh, it's falsifiable, but it's not testable unless you can do what I say and show THERE IS NO NATURALISTIC UNGUIDED SCENARIO. Good luck on supporting your claim of that negative.
As you make clear, any laboratory demonstration in less than a human lifetime of what could have happened in truly unguided fashion over several hundred million years will be "proof of design" as you intend to spin it.
Your whole proposal is a stupid Catch-22 game which should fool only the people dumb enough to prefer superstition in the first place.
2,183 posted on
12/22/2005 10:06:33 AM PST by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson