[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?"

[unlearner]

"If you are not positing a law then this is irrelevant. "

It is far from irrelevant. We are debating the scientific merit of my assertion. Earlier I argued that my assertion followed the same type of logic applied to the law of gravity.

I was debating this with someone else when you interjected, if I remember correctly. I always maintained that my assertion was merely supportable, not supported the way the law of gravity is. My comparison was to illustrate that science does include universal statements, and in fact, this is a desirable thing. The more universal an explanation, the better.

You are arguing a standard of demarcation which, if applied, would exclude scientific laws like this one altogether.

If you believe the law of gravity is supportable and falsifiable (and it is), you should also accept that my assertion is as well.

It could hardly be more relevant.