shmogie, you are still misunderstanding what falsifiable mean in science. You seem to be confusing falsifiability with explanation (eg model, hypothesis or theory) being “true” or being “fact”.
That’s wrong.
The only way to actually determine which explanation is true or false, it is when carrying out the testing and analysing the evidence or the data acquired from the evidence.
Falsifiability occurred BEFORE the testing and analysing stages of Scientific Method, which tests is the practice or the physical works.
Falsifiability is about logically assessing the explanation to see if it capable of being tested, to conceive of ways to put the explanation to the test.
If, for instance, you thought of ways for explanation (eg hypothesis) to be tested, at future date, then the hypothesis is “falsifiable”.
But if you cannot conceive of ways to test (at future date), then the hypothesis is “unfalsifiable”.
One way to determine if a hypothesis is falsifiable or not falsifiable, is to look and read if there are instructions within the hypothesis, like instruction on to set up experiments in the controlled environment of lab, or instruction on how, where and when to find evidence in the field, thus fieldwork (uncontrolled environment).
If there are no such instructions in the hypothesis, then the hypothesis isn’t a hypothesis, because it is unfalsifiable.
You are wrong about Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is already falsifiable, since experiments have already been performed, the first experiment being Miller-Urey experiment (1952), where they have successfully convert a number of inorganic matters into organic matters - amino acids.
Amino acids are ones of the organic compounds that proteins are made of.
Since then, other gas molecules were added and used in other experiments by other biochemists. The Miller-Urey experiment didn’t include gases that would exist in the Earth atmosphere as the results of frequent volcanic activities. These other experiments have successfully used these other gases.
But these experiments only relate to the sources of life came from Earth. There have been evidence that amino acid can survive in asteroids and meteorites and comets.
In 1969, over 90 different amino acids were found on the Murchison meteorite.
With each of these evidence or experiments, Abiogenesis is already falsifiable.
While it is true, that Abiogenesis experiments haven’t created life from inorganic matters, but these experiments have successfully created organic compounds with inorganic matters.
Life cannot exist without organic compounds, so recreating conditions where organic matters (such as amino acids and proteins) can exist, is the step in the right direction for Abiogenesis.
You are forgetting that science involved progress and accumulation of knowledges, that often take time to find the evidence...sometimes it can take centuries, or even millennia.
Take for example, astronomy. It was thought the entire universe consisted of this Earth and some couple of thousands objects (stars, planets, moon) close by, and can be seen with the naked eyes. Most of the objects were mostly stars within a very tiny portion of the Milky Way. Even with the earlier telescopes before the 20th century, astronomers can only see limited numbers of stars, and Andromeda and Triangulum and some few other objects were thought to be nebulas, not separate galaxies. It is only when they finished constructing the largest telescope at that time, the 1919’s Hooker Telescope, that Edwin Hubble discovered these were galaxies, not nebulas. As more powerful telescopes were built more galaxies were found.
My point is that you cannot dismiss something just because of your personal belief. Abiogenesis may have not unlock all the mysteries about the earliest life, but it is a step in the right direction. And is using known knowledge of biology and biochemistry to piece together a natural phenomena.
With the Bible, it stated that god created Adam from the dust of the earth, breath on the man-shaped dust and gave life.You cannot turn dust into living and conscious adult man, it is highly improbable and it is impossible in the real world. That (creation of Adam) is magical or supernatural, and a myth.
