“If you cannopt falsify a theory, you cannot call it science. But, I am very willing to be corrected here. Just tell me how to falsify ID.”
Please explain to me how the modern theory of abiogenesis can be falsified. Until you do, I’ll assume that you don’t consider it “science” (never mind how much tax money is spent on it!).
I guess you weren’t yet on this thread when I posted post # 101, so I’ll copy some of it here:
Also, as I said before, the problem is not just that science hasnt figured it out yet, though evolutionists would have us believe that. The problem is that the random origin of the first cell would be comparable, as Fred Hoyle put it, to having a tornado in a junkyard result in a fully assembled Boeing 747. I use a slightly different analogy. It would be comparable to having the entire text of the Gettysburg Address show up randomly on some desert sands due to random winds.
Ive also pointed out that the entire notion of a random origin of the first cell in unfalsifiable and hence, by the very definitions used by many evolutionists, unscientific. Think about it. Explain to me how one could prove that the Gettysburg Address never appeared spontaneously on the sands of a desert.
It can only be done by probabilistic analysis, but evolutionists routinely dismiss such analyses with a wave of the hand. Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is unscientific according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.
Are there any competing scientific theories?
I am unfortunately unfamiliar with this theory. I thought we were discussing the Evolutionary theory, which requires life to exist before it can work.
Hence, the modern theory of abiogenesis is unscientific according to the very same criterion that evolutionists claim that ID is unscientific.
You are referring to a hypothesis. And, until someone creates life from inorganic materials, that is what it will remain.
Kindly reveal that the "theory of abiogenesis" is and what it states.
I follow this rather closely, and I'm not aware of even a hypothesis, much less a theory.