Re:Which do you believe? (Score 1)

But on the same note, challenges to established scientific principles must themselves be scientific, and that is the problem here. This creationist doctrine, whatever term proponents choose to call it, is fundamentally non-scientific -- even anti-science. If a theory can't produce hypotheses, can't be tested, can't be disproven, and can't make predictions, then it's not a theory and certainly not science.

Therein lies the problem. Tell me how the hypothesis of abiogenesis in the primordial ooze is testable, can be disproven and what predictions it makes? Specifically testable predictions for which we do not already know the results.

You have to apply the criteria without bias.

BTW, this definition of scientific theory rules out much of archaeology as a science but I am okay with that. ;)