Replies

" Wrong. Your hypothesis is untestable... Please don't just repeat the same dumb wrong thing again. You have a hypothesis that abiogenesis cannot happen by any scenario at all. You will never be able to test that. If you think you can, please sumbmit a test plan. Stop faking it. If you can't do it, grow up and admit it. If you can, submit plan. Is that clear enough?"

You are repeating yourself, also. But you continue to be incorrect. First, the generally accepted demarcation of science is not testability, but falsifiability. Perhaps that is an over generalization, but unless we are to debate the philosophy of science, falsifiability is the primary standard.

Precedence of a theory or hypothesis is generally given for those which explain the most phenomena and are more universal.

Let me simplify: Life can only originate through intelligent intervention. No need for infinite tests. It is falsifiable. It is testable. Don't let bias and emotion influence your objectivity. You are arguing from emotion.

Saying things like "dumb", "faking it", and "grow up" do not constitute a logical argument. If you can logically invalidate my argument, I will concede.

You may have been one of the ones here who persuaded me a long time ago that speciation is an observable phenomenon which supports evolutionary theory. I did not accept this when I first entered this debate more than a year ago. I have since admitted I was wrong. So I am not entirely closed minded.

Do you feel the same about the law of gravity? It states that EVERY object in the Universe attracts EVERY other object with a force directed along the line of centers of mass for the two objects. Do we need to wait until we can test EVERY object in order for this statement to become scientific?

You are repeating yourself, also.

But I'm not wrong and you are dodging about where you clearly are. Your hypothesis sucks.

Let me simplify: Life can only originate through intelligent intervention.

How will you exclude all other possibilities?

No need for infinite tests.

It is very, very, far from clear why not. Please stop spewing and pretending you can't see. Deal with the problem. Why can't a creationist have the minimal integrity to confront a problem instead of shucking and jiving and spewing and running and hiding?

It is falsifiable.

Yes, a counterexample could be found any time. However, the lack of one being found by any given time doesn't mean doodle.

It is testable.

By what possible means? Please answer this question. I've asked it in three posts now. Don't just tell me it's testable. That would look very bad if you did that yet again.