[unlearner]

"You can pretend with all your might that this doesn't have implications."

Answered already. Re read, rinse, repeat.

"By the way, since I must have missed that part of our discussion, when did you reclassify your statement from 'hypothesis' to 'law'?"

You cannot get out of this so easily. I never claimed my assertion to be a law. I demonstrated that accepted scientific theories also make exclusive statements which do not comply with your requirement of support.

Again, when you can explain how the universal and exclusive aspect of the law of gravity is supported as you demand, get back to me.

[Condorman]

I never claimed my assertion to be a law.

So why did you offer in post 3236, as a dodge to the request to support your hypothesis, this:

Laws suggest universal conditions, and no one is advocating that laws be required to support their exclusive claims. It is adequate to have the possibility of falsification.

If you are not positing a law then this is irrelevant. So as what, then, do you classify your statement, "Life can only originate through intelligent intervention?"

[Condorman]

Answered already.

How? By sticking fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la?" You claim that intelligent intervention is the only thing that can create life. I'm trying to figure out how you arrived at that conclusion. You have nothing tangible to offer in the way of evidence, you have retreated from the position that your statement is supportable, and you have failed to produce any useful experiments on the subject. See this process through to completion, and withdraw the assertion that your claim is scientific. Then, finally, we will be in agreement.