[unlearner]

"If you're going to throw one off the science team for being willing to consider newly uncovered evidence as potentially capable of falsifying a theory, you have to throw them all off, and then your crackpottery becomes obvious, doesn't it?"

No. You still have not articulated a solid argument against my point. I distinguished the theory from the data resulting from testing. You can falsify a theory (or should be able to if the theory is scientific), but you cannot falsify a historical event (without relying on other non falsifiable history to do so).

Your earlier point which you reiterated here about when data is found is a good one, but it fails to address the distinction I raised.

You need to do two things. Give an example of how a historical event can be falsified without relying on some other historical event to do so. And explain how abiogenesis as a whole can be falsified.

[donh]

You need to do two things. Give an example of how a historical event can be falsified without relying on some other historical event to do so. And explain how abiogenesis as a whole can be falsified.

Science cranks are always holding up hoops of their own devising for science to jump thru, and then raising a ruckus when science pays them scant heed. We'll get over your problems with historical data. Kindly tell me what data astonomers look at, that's contemporaneous, that tells them the story of the Big Bang?