[unlearner]

"There are several naturalistic abiogenetic theories floating around"

How are they falsifiable? Where is the supporting evidence? Apart from these, why are you calling them theories?

"your somewhat loopy theory"

I never called it a theory. It is a hypothesis. What is loopy about? You are making a broad statement without identifying anything specific.

[donh]

I never called it a theory. It is a hypothesis. What is loopy about? You are making a broad statement without identifying anything specific.

The statement that started this part of the thread was yours as follows (and I might add, quite recently, and proximately to this post):

I think ID has a very low bar to meet since there really are no scientific theories for the origin of life.

That is your theory--it is, in fact, the very theory that started this conversation, and, strictly as a matter of scientific objectivity, it is definitely loopy: the status of falsifiable tests of naturalistic explanations of life's origins has absolutely no bar-lowering affect on the falsifiable-ness of ID tests.

[donh]

why are you calling them theories?

Well, perhaps much for the same reason I call cold fusion and astrological forecast charting and the chiropractic disease theory of bone displacement, and my notion that the kids will go to sleep if I read them a story, theories. Unlike the case with finding a genuine, potentially falsifying test, there is no significant bar to being a theory.