"Only God can judge me!" Religious debates rerun

[firedragon]

1. You can't falsify abiogenesis.
Go ahead and try to explain how you could. You won't come up with an answer.

Mate. Scientists theorise some parts of creating an environment in a closed system and experiment coming up with a thesis that will be falsified. This is the scientific method. It makes no sense whatsoever to say "falsify abiogenesis" when falsification is done on a particular thesis.

2. Speculation is also not the same as a hypothesis, so you're conflating those two terms together incorrectly.
A hypothesis implies you have something you can test.

I did not say "speculation is hypothesis" which you made up. A straw man. Go back and read please.

3. You cannot logically say you "don't know" what to believe if you believe in materialistic determinism and atheism. And for the context of the western world, generally any atheist is going to believe in materialistic determinism by default.

But they always say they dont know. Again, you are speaking of an anecdotal fallacy you made.

So your worldview has forced you into an a priori conclusion that organic life emerged at some point from inorganic matter without the intervention of any transcendent intelligence or spiritual aspect.

Nope. Never did. Another straw man. I am a theist.

You might say you don't know the mechanism by which life arose out of inorganic matter, but you can't say you don't believe life arose by chance from inorganic matter because that conclusion is baked into your worldview of materialistic determinism combined with atheism.

Never made that point. Strawman galore.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Saying the word "more" doesn't refute the fact that you committed an Ad Hominem fallacy, nor does it refute any other point I made in this thread.

What point am I refuting?

 

[Rise]

What point am I refuting?

You aren't refuting anything, that's the problem.

You quoted something and responded with a meaningless one word response.

It serves no purpose as it does not refute any of the points I made, nor bolster any of your attempted points.

 

[firedragon]

You aren't refuting anything, that's the problem.

You quoted something and responded with a meaningless one word response.

It serves no purpose as it does not refute any of the points I made, nor bolster any of your attempted points.

Thus, if I am not refuting anything, why are you talking about me refuting mate? I am not refuting you and there is nothing to refute. You are throwing stones at the wrong mountain.

 

[Rise]

What point am I refuting?

You weren't refuting a point. That's the problem.

You responded to a point I made with nonsense. Simply the word "more".

Your post does not refute the point you are responding to. Therefore the point stands and you have no counter.

Thus, if I am not refuting anything, why are you talking about me refuting mate? I am not refuting you and there is nothing to refute. You are throwing stones at the wrong mountain.

Since you tried to make a claim, and I refuted your claim with a counter argument, the the "burden of rejoinder" is on you to offer a valid counter argument in defense of your original point.

Otherwise you concede you cannot defend your claim.

Responding with nonsense to my valid counter argument is a tacit admission that you have no valid counter argument and thus are conceding the point to me.

 

[firedragon]

You weren't refuting a point. That's the problem.

You responded to a point I made with nonsense. Simply the word "more".

Your post does not refute the point you are responding to. Therefore the point stands and you have no counter.



Since you tried to make a claim, and I refuted your claim with a counter argument, the the "burden of rejoinder" is on you to offer a valid counter argument in defense of your original point.

Otherwise you concede you cannot defend your claim.

Responding with nonsense to my valid counter argument is a tacit admission that you have no valid counter argument and thus are conceding the point to me.

So what are you arguing about now? Can you explain very precisely in a nutshell, specifically?

 

[Rise]

Mate. Scientists theorise some parts of creating an environment in a closed system and experiment coming up with a thesis that will be falsified. This is the scientific method.

Logical fallacy, "Irrelevant conclusion".
Because giving a definition of the scientific method doesn't prove your claim that abiognesis is falsifiable.
You have to establish with facts and reasons why abiogenesis can be subject to the scientific method of falsifiability.
Merely defining the scientific method doesn't prove anything if you can't prove abiogenesis is subject to that method.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say "falsify abiogenesis" when falsification is done on a particular thesis.

You are the one who claimed abiogenesis was falsifiable.
But now you're saying it makes no sense to ask in what way or how abiogenesis is falsifiable?
So are you saying your original claim was nonsense and untrue?
If that's the case, I would agree with your concession.

I did not say "speculation is hypothesis" which you made up. A straw man. Go back and read please.

You said it right here:

would say that he doesn't know but can speculate with a hypothesis

One does not "speculate with a hypothesis" by definition. Because a hypothesis by definition is not just speculation.
To say one speculates with a hypothesis is to imply they are the same thing.

But they always say they dont know.

Logical fallacy, "Irrelevent conclusion".

Whether or not a materialistic deterministic atheist says they "don't know" how life arose is irrelevant to the point I made.

That point was that someone who holds to the worldview of atheistic materialistic determinism cannot logically say they are not asserting that organic life arose out of inorganic matter by chance.

It is impossible for them to believe in any other way for life to arise because that would contradict the premise of their worldview which is based on both atheism and materialistic determinism.

Materialistic determinism says that everything that will happen is already predetermined by the starting conditions of the universe. They presume that everything runs off established laws, and reject the idea that there is some kind of intelligent force that can influence the universe outside of those laws. They are forced by their worldview to say that somehow inorganic matter turned into organic matter without the influence of an intelligent force outside of the laws of the universe.

And if someone is an atheist on top of that, then they can't even say that some intelligent force set up the conditions at the start of the universe to result in life appearing (which would be a theistic materialistic determinist). They are logically forced by their worldview of both atheism combined with materialistic determinism to ascribe the emergence of organic life from inorganic matter to random chance under the laws of the universe.

I don't see any logically consistent way one could be an atheistic and special creationist at the same time. So that possibility goes out the window too. No matter how you try to come up with your spiritual views about how an outside intelligence could create life, you ultimately end up with that being or beings being defined as deities by any historical or modern definition of the word. So then you wouldn't be an atheist by definition anymore.
Because one of the defining characteristics of God in the Bible is that He is the Creator. That's part of what makes Him God. And it further defines for us that because He is the Creator He has the right to tell us how things need to be. So once you start talking about any intelligent force not bound by the laws of the universe able to act upon the universe to create life where it otherwise wouldn't have been able to exist, you're talking about one of the defining attributes of what makes God who He is in the Bible. And by any historical definition people would have called such a being god, or at least a god, too.

Again, you are speaking of an anecdotal fallacy you made.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming that I committed the anecdotal fallacy doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You would need to give actual reasons to justify your claim by pointing to anything specific I said and then outlining with logical argumentation why it supposedly constitutes a fallacy.

Nope. Never did. Another straw man. I am a theist.

...

Never made that point. Strawman galore.

You are incorrectly using the fallacy of "strawman", as it does not apply to what you are quoting.

Whether or not you personally are an atheistic materialistic deterministic is not relevant to the point I was making.

I said "you" in a general sense, speaking of those who hold to the worldview of atheistic materialistic determinism, for the purpose of making my point.
I said "if you" believed this "then you" would have to believe this.

Therefore, no strawman was committed because I wasn't asserting as a fact that you did hold that viewpoint.

 

[firedragon]

You are the one who claimed abiogenesis was falsifiable.

Of course. Any thesis is falsified. that's the method. Maybe you should understand what falsification is.

Again, what are you arguing about? In a nutshell.

 

[Rise]

So what are you arguing about now? Can you explain very precisely in a nutshell, specifically?

I presume you are referring to the post you quoted.

Which was this:

------------

You weren't refuting a point. That's the problem.

You responded to a point I made with nonsense. Simply the word "more".

Your post does not refute the point you are responding to. Therefore the point stands and you have no counter.



Since you tried to make a claim, and I refuted your claim with a counter argument, the the "burden of rejoinder" is on you to offer a valid counter argument in defense of your original point.

Otherwise you concede you cannot defend your claim.

Responding with nonsense to my valid counter argument is a tacit admission that you have no valid counter argument and thus are conceding the point to me.

--------------

It should be readily apparent what my point was.

Although I can summarize it:

You did not have a valid response to my argument.
Therefore, you failed the burden of rejoinder and conceded the point.

 

[Rise]

Of course. Any thesis is falsified.

Your original claim is based on a false assumption you can't prove. I'll show why:

1. You start from the premise that all hypothesis are falsifiable by definition. Let's just go with your definition for the sake of argument and see where the error in your argument is.
2. You then claim that abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis.
3. Therefore you conclude that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

The problem with your argument: You're missing the fact that you never proved abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis to start with under your definition that all hypothesis are falsifiable.

You are actually committing the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning". You claim abiogenesis is falsifiable because it's a hypothesis. And you imply by your definition that abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis because it's falsifiable. Circular reasoning.

In order to prove that abiogenesis meets your definition of a hypotheis the onus is on you to give an example of how abiogenesis could be proven wrong.

The definition of falsifiability is the ability to prove something to not be true.

So the task before you then is very simple: You must give us a way in which abiogenesis can be proven wrong.

If you cannot give us a method in which abiogeneis can be proven wrong then you can't claim it's falsifiable. Your claim would then be refuted.

And by your definition if it is not falsifiable then it does not qualify as a hypothesis.

that's the method.

Just proclaiming that there exists a "method" called "falsification" would be the fallacy of "irrelevant conclusion". The truth of that statement doesn't do anything to prove your original claim that abiogenesis is capable of being subject to that method.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable to provide an example of why it would be considered falsifiable.

Again, what are you arguing about? In a nutshell.

With regards to what you were quoting?

I believe I just answered your question in the preceding parts of this post.

 

[firedragon]

Just proclaiming that there exists a "method" called "falsification" would be the fallacy of "irrelevant conclusion". The truth of that statement doesn't do anything to prove your original claim that abiogenesis is capable of being subject to that method.

I didnt say there is a method of falsification, I said this is the process, this is the method.

I think you have not understood it at all.

So what's your argument?

 

[firedragon]

1. You start from the premise that all hypothesis are falsifiable by definition. Let's just go with your definition for the sake of argument and see where the error in your argument is.
2. You then claim that abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis.
3. Therefore you conclude that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

You need to seriously open your eyes, practice a little bit of humility and understand things before you make statements like this. You claimed that I said "because abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis it is falsifiable" which is absolutely and mindnumbingly wrong.

Please go and do a little bit of reading on the scientific method. Please go and read what falsification is, maybe then you would understand a tad better.

 

[Rise]

I didnt say there is a method of falsification, I said this is the process, this is the method.

I think you have not understood it at all.

What you said:
Any thesis is falsified. that's the method. Maybe you should understand what falsification is.

"that's the method".

What's the method referring to:

"falsified".

You're calling "falsified" a "method".

You then refer to it as "falsification", in the context of there being a method.

A plain reading of what you said is that you think there's a method called falsification.

If that's not what you intended to say then the fault is in your inability to formulate a coherent written thought.

So what's your argument?

You are confused. You are the one trying to make a claims here.

I am pointing out that you have no basis for your claim and cannot support your claim is true.

You tried to claim:
1. That abiogenesis was a hypothesis.
2. That abiogenesis was falsifiable.

But you have been unable to give any specific arguments that would support your claim that abiogenesis either qualifies as a hypothesis or is falsifiable.

The onus is on you as the one making a claim to provide valid arguments to support or prove your claim.

You need to seriously open your eyes, practice a little bit of humility and understand things before you make statements like this.
You claimed that I said "because abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis it is falsifiable" which is absolutely and mindnumbingly wrong.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".

I gave valid arguments about why you were engaging in circular reasoning.

You don't refute those arguments by merely asserting that they aren't true. You would need to give actual reasons why my logic was supposedly in error.


You said:
Any thesis is falsified. that's the method.

Thesis can be a synonym for hypothesis.

You are asserting that any thesis/hypothesis by definition is falsifiable.

That is the only thing you have ever said in support of your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

Therefore, the only thing we can conclude from your arguments, is that you are engaged in circular reasoning.

You've claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
You've claimed abiogenesis is falsifiable.
You've claimed that all thesis/hypothesis are falsifiable are definition.

And you've given no other reason but that to justify your belief that abiogenesis is both a hypothesis and falsifiable. So it's circular reasoning.
You'd have to first prove that abiogenesis is falsifiable before you could call it a hypothesis.
You can't prove it's falsifiable by just saying it's a hypothesis. Because you haven't first proved it qualifies as a hypothesis.

When I ask you specifically how one would go about falsifying abiogenesis you can't give an answer.
You just throw out vague generalized references to the "scientific method" without explaining how the scientific method could actually be applied to abiogenesis to falsify it.

You don't prove abiogenesis is a hypothesis by just saying the words "scientific method". You need to actually give specific reasons why abiogenesis supposedly qualifies as being subject to the scientific method.

You won't be able to do that.
Because abiogenesis isn't falsifiable.

Please go and do a little bit of reading on the scientific method. Please go and read what falsification is, maybe then you would understand a tad better.

Logical fallacy "Ad Hominem".
Merely claiming I don't understand the issue doesn't refute the validity of my points or the truth of what I said.

The onus is on you as the one making the claim to prove your claim is true.
You don't prove your claim is true by merely asserting that you think I don't understand the issue.

You would have to demonstrate with logic or facts why you think you can show I supposedly am deficient in understanding the issue.

And then you would further have to demonstrate the relevance of that to proving you point by showing with valid arguments why a supposed proper understanding of an issue would prove your claim is true.

You won't be able to do that either.

 

[firedragon]

"that's the method".

What's the method referring to:

"falsified".

You're calling "falsified" a "method".

You then refer to it as "falsification", in the context of there being a method.

A plain reading of what you said is that you think there's a method called falsification.

Falsification is part of the method. This is the reason I asked you to do some research on it.

 

[firedragon]

You don't prove abiogenesis is a hypothesis by just saying the words "scientific method"

So are you saying abiogenesis is not a hypothesis? Then what is it? Is it fact?

What is your argument?

 

[Rise]

Falsification is part of the method.

Your statement doesn't refute the point you were responding to.

Which was:
That based on your previous post you had referred to falsification as a method, by a plain reading of your post. Therefore, I was within reason to read it that way, and you had no basis for accusing me of misrepresenting what you said.
If that's not what you meant then the fault is on your end for expressing your views incorrectly.

This is the reason I asked you to do some research on it.

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion" and "shifting the burden of proof".

The onus is on you as the one making the argument to offer support for your claim. You do not support you claim by merely asserting you are right and telling others to go "research it".

If the research really did support your claim then you would be capable of furnishing that research as proof of your claims.

But you can't. Because it doesn't.

So you're trying to hide the fact that you're not capable of defending your position by merely insisting that you are right and telling others to go do your research for you.

So are you saying abiogenesis is not a hypothesis? Then what is it? Is it fact?

Your question is a logical fallacy of a false dichotomy.
It implies that the only two possibilities are for something to either be a fact or a hypothesis.

The fact that you would present those as the only two options shows you do not understand the difference between speculation and hypothesis.
Which is probably why you mistakenly referred to both of them in the same sentence earlier as though they were the same thing.

A hypothesis implies something can be tested and falsified.
Speculation does not.

If you want to insist that abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis, you'd need to explain why it qualifies as a hypothesis rather than mere speculation.

What is your argument?

I already addressed your question and you ignored it. I can simply repost it for you:


You are confused. You are the one trying to make a claims here.

I am pointing out that you have no basis for your claim and cannot support your claim is true.

You tried to claim:
1. That abiogenesis was a hypothesis.
2. That abiogenesis was falsifiable.

But you have been unable to give any specific arguments that would support your claim that abiogenesis either qualifies as a hypothesis or is falsifiable.

The onus is on you as the one making a claim to provide valid arguments to support or prove your claim.

 

[firedragon]

You tried to claim:
1. That abiogenesis was a hypothesis.
2. That abiogenesis was falsifiable.

I claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Its true. And its correct. Are you saying no?

Also, are you saying a thesis is not falsifiable?

Whats your point?

 

[firedragon]

But you have been unable to give any specific arguments that would support your claim that abiogenesis either qualifies as a hypothesis or is falsifiable.

So you want some evidence for three things.

1. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis
2. Hypothesis is falsifiable.

Am I getting you right?

1. Read "Rethinking Evolution" by Gene Levinson, page 84.

Haldane coined the term “prebiotic soup” to describe this hypothesis. This hypothesis—that life arose spontaneously from nonliving materials—is called abiogenesis. The philosophical and theoretical significance of the abiogenesis hypothesis—not only for evolutionary theory but also for our collective vision of our own origins—can hardly be overstated. Abiogenesis complemented classical Darwinian theory and provided a more comprehensive and durable naturalistic 20th cen
tury theory for the origin and evolution of life on Earth that lasted for many decades.

Also read "A dictionary of animal behaviour" by Edward Barrows

abiogenesis.
An organism’s hypothetical origination, or evolution, from inanimate matter without the action of living parents (Huxley 1870 in the Oxford English Dictionary 1972; Mayr 1982, 582, 959)

Or read Stephen Meyers "Signature in the cell"

Yet I also knew that there was another major hypothesis about the origin of life that was attracting attention. It too combined chance and necessity, but envisioned a role for natural selection much earlier in the process of abiogenesis. This hypothesis also held out the possibility of explaining the classical “chicken and egg” problem—the origin of the interdependence of DNA and proteins—by starting the process of abiogenesis in a different place—or rather, with a different molecule.



2. Encyclopedia of Timescience, philosophy, theology, culture, article on Karl Popper.

The conclusion is that scientific knowledge does not improve by positive evidence. Instead, according to the principle of falsification, the point is to prove all the false hypotheses wrong by finding compelling counterexamples. “Verification” is a mistaken notion. Theories that withstand scientific scrutiny are “more valid,” according to Popper, and falsifiability is a much better criterion of demarcation between scientific and nonscientific theories. In the area of social philosophy, he likewise demonstrated the invalid ity of “truth claims” for ideologies, be they socio historical or political theories. Preferring a motif of indeterminism, his political ideas merged into a liberalistic pleading for a pluralistic, liberal, and democratic “open society.”

Cheers.

 

[Rise]

I claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis. Its true. And its correct. Are you saying no?

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that your claim is true doesn't prove your claim is true just because you assert it.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to provide valid reasons why you think you can state as truth that abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

You could try to do that by furnishing a definition of hypothesis and then why you think abiogenesis qualifies for that definition.

Also, are you saying a thesis is not falsifiable?

The implication of your question is the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning". Assuming you are using thesis as a synonym for hypothesis.

And since I already demonstrated why you've committed the fallacy of circular reasoning in previous posts, you are further guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by repetition" - since you never dealt with my counter arguments which already refuted your attempted argument.

Merely repeating your refuted argument, whilst ignoring that which refuted it, doesn't make it a valid argument or counter my refutation just because you repeat your failed argument.


You said:
""Any thesis is falsified. that's the method."

Thesis can be a synonym for hypothesis.

You are asserting that any thesis/hypothesis by definition is falsifiable.

That is the only thing you have ever said in support of your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

Therefore, the only thing we can conclude from your arguments, is that you are engaged in circular reasoning.

You've claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
You've claimed abiogenesis is falsifiable.
You've claimed that all thesis/hypothesis are falsifiable are definition.

And you've given no other reason but that to justify your belief that abiogenesis is both a hypothesis and falsifiable. So it's circular reasoning.
You'd have to first prove that abiogenesis is falsifiable before you could call it a hypothesis.
You can't prove it's falsifiable by just saying it's a hypothesis. Because you haven't first proved it qualifies as a hypothesis.

When I ask you specifically how one would go about falsifying abiogenesis you can't give an answer.
You just throw out vague generalized references to the "scientific method" without explaining how the scientific method could actually be applied to abiogenesis to falsify it.

You don't prove abiogenesis is a hypothesis by just saying the words "scientific method". You need to actually give specific reasons why abiogenesis supposedly qualifies as being subject to the scientific method.

You won't be able to do that.
Because abiogenesis isn't falsifiable.



I have specifically asked you to justify your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable. You have been unable to do that.

All you've done is claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis. And then claimed that all hypothesis are falsifiable. Therefore you claim abiogenesis is falsifiable because it's a hypothesis. Which as I pointed out is the logical fallacy of "ciricular reasoning".

You have then repeated that same fallacy after trying to deny you did it.

If you want to try to use the claim that abiogenesis is a hypothesis to prove your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable, then the burden of proof is first on you to prove that abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis (and that the definition of hypothesis requires falsifiability), before you can begin to justify your claim as true.

Whats your point?

You are again committing the logical fallacy of "argument by repetition".

I already answered your question and refuted it's implication.

You did not address any of those points.


You are confused. You are the one trying to make a claims here.

I am pointing out that you have no basis for your claim and cannot support your claim is true.

You tried to claim:
1. That abiogenesis was a hypothesis.
2. That abiogenesis was falsifiable.

But you have been unable to give any specific arguments that would support your claim that abiogenesis either qualifies as a hypothesis or is falsifiable.

The onus is on you as the one making a claim to provide valid arguments to support or prove your claim.

 

[firedragon]

Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely asserting that your claim is true doesn't prove your claim is true just because you assert it.

The burden of proof is on you as the one making the claim to provide valid reasons why you think you can state as truth that abiogenesis is a hypothesis.

You could try to do that by furnishing a definition of hypothesis and then why you think abiogenesis qualifies for that definition.




The implication of your question is the logical fallacy of "circular reasoning". Assuming you are using thesis as a synonym for hypothesis.

And since I already demonstrated why you've committed the fallacy of circular reasoning in previous posts, you are further guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument by repetition" - since you never dealt with my counter arguments which already refuted your attempted argument.

Merely repeating your refuted argument, whilst ignoring that which refuted it, doesn't make it a valid argument or counter my refutation just because you repeat your failed argument.


You said:
""Any thesis is falsified. that's the method."

Thesis can be a synonym for hypothesis.

You are asserting that any thesis/hypothesis by definition is falsifiable.

That is the only thing you have ever said in support of your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable.

Therefore, the only thing we can conclude from your arguments, is that you are engaged in circular reasoning.

You've claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis.
You've claimed abiogenesis is falsifiable.
You've claimed that all thesis/hypothesis are falsifiable are definition.

And you've given no other reason but that to justify your belief that abiogenesis is both a hypothesis and falsifiable. So it's circular reasoning.
You'd have to first prove that abiogenesis is falsifiable before you could call it a hypothesis.
You can't prove it's falsifiable by just saying it's a hypothesis. Because you haven't first proved it qualifies as a hypothesis.

When I ask you specifically how one would go about falsifying abiogenesis you can't give an answer.
You just throw out vague generalized references to the "scientific method" without explaining how the scientific method could actually be applied to abiogenesis to falsify it.

You don't prove abiogenesis is a hypothesis by just saying the words "scientific method". You need to actually give specific reasons why abiogenesis supposedly qualifies as being subject to the scientific method.

You won't be able to do that.
Because abiogenesis isn't falsifiable.



I have specifically asked you to justify your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable. You have been unable to do that.

All you've done is claimed abiogenesis is a hypothesis. And then claimed that all hypothesis are falsifiable. Therefore you claim abiogenesis is falsifiable because it's a hypothesis. Which as I pointed out is the logical fallacy of "ciricular reasoning".

You have then repeated that same fallacy after trying to deny you did it.

If you want to try to use the claim that abiogenesis is a hypothesis to prove your claim that abiogenesis is falsifiable, then the burden of proof is first on you to prove that abiogenesis qualifies as a hypothesis (and that the definition of hypothesis requires falsifiability), before you can begin to justify your claim as true.





You are again committing the logical fallacy of "argument by repetition".

I already answered your question and refuted it's implication.

You did not address any of those points.


You are confused. You are the one trying to make a claims here.

I am pointing out that you have no basis for your claim and cannot support your claim is true.

You tried to claim:
1. That abiogenesis was a hypothesis.
2. That abiogenesis was falsifiable.

But you have been unable to give any specific arguments that would support your claim that abiogenesis either qualifies as a hypothesis or is falsifiable.

The onus is on you as the one making a claim to provide valid arguments to support or prove your claim.

Strawman.