Again same song different verse, it is too complex to understand so God did it.
Those are not explanations that can falsify your previous statement. Pointing out a perceived weakness in Darwin’s theory does nothing to answer the basic question of how to falsify a supernatural explanation. Failure to accept the naturalistic explanations that have been provided does not provide a means to falsify a supernatural explanation.
I am not asking any questions regarding Darwin’s theory, using misconceptions and straw men against evolution do nothing to answer the question that I asked. The only replies that have offered have been attempts at misdirection
If “creation science” wants to be taken seriously then it will need to stand on its own, and provide falsifiable evidence to support their theory and so far they have failed to do that.
Being able to falsify your theory is a basic part of the Scientific Method with out that there is no theory.
In order to receive any credibility within the scientific community it is the starting point. These are the rules that all scientist play by and “creation science” should not get a free pass.
Let’s try a parable this time; I hear a crash in the kitchen, walk in there and find my son, a chair, and a broken cookie jar. I asked my son what happened and he tells me a ghost broke the cookie jar and then disappeared. He was simply using the chair to hide from the ghost. How can I disprove his story?
Punch him in the stomach until he vomits.
Speaking of strawmen, you keep building a fine one. Two things, first, the scientists involved are the ones that essentially say there exists no empirically supported explanation for the genesis of the core elements apparent in the cell. Second, your question has been answered even though you don't like tha answer.
You admit to being a Chrstian in post 61, therefore you accept that there are supernatural explanations for events that are otherwise inexplicable by "natural" causes. Now in the history of mankind how were "erroneous" supernatural explanations scientifically disproven? I sincerely hope that you can answer that.
Your parable is not complete. There is no way your son could have reached or touched the cookie jar and no earthquakes, storms or the like occurred since you last saw the cookie jar. And no other living thing capable of breaking cookie jars existed in the kitchen. Now the silly parable is complete.
“How can I disprove his story?”
You don’t have to disprove his story. Just tell him that no father you know of believes his story and that the boy has no proof you will accept as factual, plus you have a degree from smart people and he does not.
Moreover, you can carefully explain that you can construct, without even being there when the incident happened, a narrative that accounts for all the evidence without bringing the ghost into it while the boy can’t.
Problem for the boy is, he did see the ghost but can’t make it appear at his beckoning so it seems a major part of his story is missing and for the present will remain so.
But you don’t want to call the boy a liar, so you can just say you’ll believe him if, if he can just show the ghost to you. Of course you won’t but by demanding that which is out of his hands you may show how weak his story is and how unlikely to be believed by others. (you hope)
So the question should be not how can you disprove his story since the mention of ghosts has already accomplished that in your mind but whether your disbelief makes the boy a liar or insane or even evil.
Don’t want the little guy embarrassing Dad, right?