Nope, wrong again. Assuming naturalism is a philosophy.
"Ok then, beginning of life. Science just doesn't know how life began. The reasons are varied. The hypotheses are many. No one theory exists. And a creator is one such hypothesis. But the key to a scientific explanation is testability. And a Creator, if we could look at many different worlds with life, has the possibility for testability. A variant of this was a Deep Space 9 episode I think"
Too much fantasy in your life, I think. Deep Space 9 is a TV show, not a scientific paper. No scientific paper can be published which appeals to a supernatural creator for the origin of life. A 'natural' creator only pushes the problem of the origin of life off of the earth and out into deep-space 'somewhere', making it even more unobservable. Think outside of the naturalism box, outside.
"And P can be refuted. Look at early ideas for origin of universe.From Earth centered to Heliocentric to Galaxycentric to Universe itself. P is often rejected due to data and predictions based on P."
A natural explanation for P can never be refuted. I already explained that P is often refuted because of the fallacy of affirming the consequent, it is always a natural explanation because of the philosophy of naturalism. I see that you still have not understood how those two concepts work together to deceive.
And actually, the geocentric model was never refuted. It is still valid under GR. Popularity votes do not a refutation make. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between science and opinion very well.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Naturalism/science as a philosophy is moot. Do science. Do philosophy. They’re different. But it all comes down to definitions it seems.
Have you tried to publish a paper that appeals to a supernatural creator for origins of life? How do you know it won’t be published? And I’m the one with too much fantasy.... If it is listed as one possible cause, then it should and probably will be published. I’m published scientifically. Are you? Are you are a reviewer? I have been. The problem is testability. That is a hallmark of the scientific method. Your quote from Ellis is typical to that of a theoretician. Experimentalists just haven’t figured out how to test it yet. See Theory of Relativity for a good example.
Heliocentric assumes a specific CS as center. GR and current thought assumes no universal center. Putting each on the same basis; that dog don’t hunt...
Hoyle is right about coordinate transforms. All physics must be correct independent of the coordinate system. But that is not heliocentrism. It just says all are correct and excludes neither or none.
With respect to the original tenet of this discussion, YEC is not consistent with the scientific method. Just too much juggling of the physics, permittivity and permissivity of free space and other stuff, to seem scientifically correct. Come up with experiments that demonstrate how the speed of light has slowed down dramatically in the last 10k years, that’ll give creation scientists credibility. From what I see, they are just are full of possibles and could bes.