[donh]

"Gradual abiogenesis, however, is a promising young science that springs from the observation of DNA clocks just like evolutionary theory operated on the observation of fossils."

Can your gradual abiogenesis be falsified?

Yes, much in the same way as "macro" evolutionary theory can be falsified.

Can you make any predictions which, upon failing, would prove gradual abiogenesis never occurred?

We just had this discussion on this thread, and you finally conceded that we can conduct science on historical data.

"Life could be a natural process which could have been created by a supernatural intelligence."

True (and I am assuming you mean the formation of life could be by a supernaturally designed natural process), but that would still fit my definition of self assembly

Gradual abiogensis does not involve "self assembly" in any manner that I can understand. No creature or phyla, or any other agglomeration of breeding organic entities are "self assembled". That would require a time machine.

and contradict my assertion. If intelligence is THE process (whether intelligence is NATURAL or not is irrelevant)

The balderdash factor begins to loom up here. If the intelligent design was natural, than we are merely pushing the question back to--"Where did the natural designers come from?", which is pretty much the question we started with. If you weren't hiding a supernatural source of design in your back pocket, the issue wouldn't arise. A non-supernatural design explanation wouldn't actually impact modern evolutionary theory all the much--it would just inflate it from an earth-sized problem to a galazy-sized problem.

by which life can assemble from lifeless matter, then the natural process you propose does not exist (other than the natural process of intelligence). Otherwise it would falsify my claim. (Unless you want to argue that these hypothetical processes are intelligent in and of themselves.)

If natural life was demonstrably assembled by non-supernatural means, than those means were natural, and you have still done nothing to demonstrate that the particular way life was produced in your lab, was the only possible way, or even the likely way, life was originally produced. As I have pointed out, producing something you claim is "just like" life, is a far cry from demonstrating anything of statistical significance about actual life, much less provide any insight as to whether actual life's source is supernatural.

[unlearner]

" We just had this discussion on this thread, and you finally conceded that we can conduct science on historical data."

I conceded that my arguments against history as science were inadequate. You proved that. I still maintain that historical events cannot be falsified. Perhaps they can serve within the context of support for a particular scientific claim. Well, not perhaps, definitely. I will give you that you proved that much. But how exactly would you falsify the WHOLE concept of gradual abiogenesis? My assertion is falsifiable in a very precise way. Mine does not allow any loopholes whereby I can back out of evidence which disproves my assertion. That is a lot better than merely saying this particular model failed, but we can formulate another.

"Gradual abiogensis does not involve 'self assembly'".

Fine by me. Use what ever description you prefer, as long as we both understand what is being discussed. Any natural assembly, any assembly which can be shown to work by natural mechanisms apart from being intelligently directed, will qualify as a falsification of my assertion.

"If you weren't hiding a supernatural source of design in your back pocket, the issue wouldn't arise."

Supernatural aspects are philosophical inferences. I made no scientific claim of bearings on the supernatural. Something which you keep doing, along with my other detractors.

"As I have pointed out, producing something you claim is 'just like' life, is a far cry from demonstrating anything of statistical significance about actual life, much less provide any insight as to whether actual life's source is supernatural."

I did not say my test was for things that are merely like life. They must actually be alive. There must be consensus. If something can be assembled that is life by your criteria then you have no leg to stand on with the foregoing argument.

Now quit trying to make this an argument about the supernatural, or I will have to smack you... and not in a good way.