"I've tried to make some of the same points on a few of these sorts of threads. Anyone invoking the name of science to make their arguments needs to understand that the scientific method is based on attempts to falsify a theory -- not on an attempt to prove it."
You might be interested in my post #29.
And please explain to me how the "hypothesis" of the naturalistic origin of the first living cell can be "falsified."
No matter how improbable it is calculated to be, the true believers can simply claim that, "given enough time and space, anything can happen."
"And please explain to me how the "hypothesis" of the naturalistic origin of the first living cell can be "falsified."
I can't explain that -- I claim no expertise in biology, nor theology.
My post #67 was written in support of Ichneumon's #52; and concerned the philosophy of science. As this debate is often framed as "science" versus "superstition" -- it is important that those purporting to speak for "science" don't misrepresent what science actually is.
I believe that, used properly, the scientific method is a powerful tool for discovery. I also acknowledge that there are many things that science cannot tell us (at least not yet).