Second, I did not say abiogenesis is an accepted theory.
Ok, are you saying it's not an accepted theory, or not a theory at all or what?
In fact, I didn't make any statement of value on abiogenesis at all, did I?
You didn't? This is what you stated:
You cannot say biogenesis as proposed by AOkid is proven until you disprove the alternative, which is abiogenesis. So, until abiogenesis is falsified, biogenesis is still unproven.
Clearly, you have made a statement of value here on abiogenesis. I am not putting words into your mouth. Your argument is that the alternative theory of abiogenesis must be falsified or biogenesis "is still unproven", right?
If that's incorrect, are you then saying that even non-theories with no evidence must be falsified first before something else is true? OK, let's say aliens created life and guided and influenced evolution. Now, clearly you cannot say Darwinism is true because, after all, you have not eliminated the alien hypothesis.
Also, why are you once again presenting the "proven" language since nothing is ever "proved" in science? Do you just mean verified as likely, but use the layman's word, "proven"?
Edited by randman, : No reason given.