quote: Your response basically amounted to providing your own personal opinion that "traveling to Earth on a meteorite" is somehow more specific than "Base-pairing coupled with thermal and catalytic activity allowed for polynucleotide replication." Unless you can explicitly show that the former is significantly more specific than the latter, you don't really have much of a case that lithopanspermia is considerably more specific than the RNA world
It seems to me that your argument assumes that such travel places very right restrictions on the organisms that could survive such travel. If that is correct, then my point is made. If it is not how can your claimed falsification possibly work ?
quote: You haven't made a very good case that lithopanspermia is unfalsifiable,
On the other hand you are making a very good case against the hypothesis that you are engaged in honest discussion. I said "panspermia" not "lithopanspermia". And I have not been trying to make a case that lithopanspermia is unfalsifiable.
quote: String "theory" is not a scientific hypothesis. Why is that? The answer lies in falsifiability and testability
There is dispute over the status of String Theory as science, but that dispute has hardly been resolved against it.
quote: If by "your criteria" you mean the requirement that a scientific hypothesis be increasingly falsifiable as more auxiliary hypotheses are added to it, then yes. But then again, I never disputed that
Actually I mean that the that YEC has been effectively falsified renders further pursuit of it as non-science.
It seems to me that bacterial spores would be a far more promising material than live bacteria. And if the falsification relies on the assumption that living bacteria rather than spores were transferred - and it sounds to me as if that is what you're saying - then it really isn't much of a falsification. If spores can make the journey without those tricks, then the tricks aren't really necessary.