“Well, no, you are not correct. One can test the chemical abiogensis hypothesis.”
I can “test” my hypothesis too. All I need to do is to look up in the sky for messages. And if I really want to get serious about it, I can simulate my own sky in the lab. You are confused about what is and is not “scientific.”
“Let’s say you have detected the hand of God and design appears to be valid. What, then, is the next step? What is the purpose of further research? What is the proposed benefit of knowing a cell was designed by God?”
For starters, we use it to get people like you to quit regurgitating nonsense. That alone would make it all worthwhile.
Your hostility to “theoretical,” as opposed to “applied” science still mystifies me.
However, I can see that this discussion is going nowhere fast.
I agree. And you research's purpose would be what?
You are confused about what is and is not “scientific.”
Maybe. However, I have not claimed that evolution covers the origin of life (it cannot), as it appears you do. So maybe we are both on shaky ground.
For starters, we use it to get people like you to quit regurgitating nonsense. That alone would make it all worthwhile.
You have, for perhaps the 6th time, failed to answer that simple question (with any meaningful answer), and managed to become insulting as well. I'd ask why, but I suspect I will get more insults. Let's just agree you've won the argument with a saavy, ad-hominem retro-grade approach.
Your hostility to “theoretical,” as opposed to “applied” science still mystifies me.
You only need to propose a purpose behind your hypothesis.