I think one point missing in the OP is that a theory can be falsifiable such that some hypothesis can be stated and an experiment designed to show the theory is false … but then if we actually conduct the experiment and the result do not fit the hypothesis … that doesn’t mean the theory is no longer falsifiable, it just turns out the theory is true …
I remember the headlines during one of the Apollo missions: … “Newtons Theory of Gravity Finally Confirmed” … something about a feather and a hammer …
Falsifying abiogenesis is fairly simple … just exhaustively explore each and every rock in the galaxy … if we don’t find any life of any kind, we’ve taken a big step in establishing Earth as a unique example … here by some supernatural agency … looks like we have a couple billions years to do this …
It is pretty unlikely. Cm itself is a lab-created element that has a very high melting point at STP, but the earth started out as a rather hot-ish place with a lot of crazy shit going on, so who knows what kind of puddles might have been lying about. Interesting choice you made, though, because Cf was created in the lab by bombarding Cm with, what else, He. So …
Heh…I originally chose xenon but changed it to helium because I thought helium was slightly less reactive and helium on earth is rare (tends to float away).
Which only goes to show I have very, very little knowledge about this stuff.
That does not seem quite exactly right. The failure of the experiment does not actually demonstrate the theory to be true, as such, it merely holds the status of the theory as “not disproven” – unless there are no other possible avenues of falsification.
Consider Newtonian mechanics. The principles have demonstrated consistent, useful results, but GR/SR, which also has demonstrated useful, consistent results, causes Newtonian mechanics to break down in extreme conditions. So, is Newtonian mechanics disproven? Or have we simply adapted it?
Actually, I seem to recall that it was Galileo they were confirming.
The hypothesis in question is way too broad. You could easily falsify any particular model of abiogenesis, but to falsify the general idea that life is the result of natural processes is to claim that there is such a thing as the supernatural. If you were to postulate that life on Earth might have been deliberately created by intelligent aliens, rather than a supernatural explanation, you simply push the question back a level. The aliens presumably arose by abiogenesis of some sort.
The existence of anything supernatural is a positive claim with not one shred of evidence. As far as I’m aware, the term doesn’t even have a clear and consistent definition. At least not one which doesn’t reduce to either “that which is not part of reality” or “that which we don’t currently understand”.
It’s like asking you could falsify the claim that there is not a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Reframing the question as a double negative does not shift the burden of proof.
The question properly stated is “does life (or anything else in the universe) require a supernatural explanation?” If you answer “yes” to this question, the onus is on you to provide a reason why anyone should take that claim seriously.
Is there life? Yes or we wouldn’t be having a discussion.
So how did it get here? A valid scientific theory will be testable. Can we test this?
As others have already said, yes we can. And have. And can continue to do so.
You know what we can’t test? Life being created through supernatural means.
I was a companion to the Doctor for a very very short time. Got on the Tardis, asked to see the primordial universe, then sneezed on it. The Doctor took me straight home and tried to erase my memories, but I guess it didn’t work.
I don’t make the rules, I just abide by them. That falsification is a requirement to be classified as science is one of those rule, although there does seem to be growing backlash against it.
