I didnt need the Stanford E to know that it was not a discarded criteria.

A common critique of abiogenesis is that it's not falsifiable. In the context of the post, that's what you were arguing. But that critique uses naive falsification, claiming that abiogenesis is a conjecture rather than a hypothesis. That use of falsification has been discarded, by even Popper himself. Falsification is still used, albeit in a modified form. "Discarded as instrumental" is not the same thing as discarded altogether.

Interbane wrote:

I didnt need the Stanford E to know that it was not a discarded criteria.

A common critique of abiogenesis is that it's not falsifiable. In the context of the post, that's what you were arguing. But that critique uses naive falsification, claiming that abiogenesis is a conjecture rather than a hypothesis. That use of falsification has been discarded, by even Popper himself. Falsification is still used, albeit in a modified form. "Discarded as instrumental" is not the same thing as discarded altogether.

Youre attempting to save face here more than anything else. I appreciated your intellectual humility when you admitted you were wrong (dead wrong, actually) when you claimed that falsification was dismissed from the practice of science You should have left it at that.

"Modifying" falsification/testability to a degree to suit a hypothesis would put at risk the goal of an unbiased conclusion.

Tweaking testability is also a concern as it relates to keeping science honest. One would have to immediately question why it would be necessary to modify the testability of a hypothesis such as aB. I am not sure what are the terms aB is working with and how those terms relate to auxiliary hypothesis of aB, and how sound the terms are. I don't know. I'm an armchair lover of Philosophy of Science and am not a scientist involved in the particulars of aB.
Do you know the answers to those questions? Let me know.

You are being presumptuous here with Popper as it relates directly to aB
Popper dismissed his idea that evolution itself was not and should not be considered pseudo science. To my knowledge, he had no chance to chime in on aB and you shouldn't be speaking for him here (which essentially you are). Did he? Prove me wrong then.
aB seems to be a rather extreme extension of the theory of evolution which deals with the process of evolutionary development and NOT Origins.

Youre attempting to save face here more than anything else. I appreciated your intellectual humility when you admitted you were wrong (dead wrong, actually) when you claimed that falsification was dismissed from the practice of science You should have left it at that.

Show me where I said "falsification is dismissed from the practice of science."

To my knowledge, he had no chance to chime in on aB and you shouldn't be speaking for him here (which essentially you are). Did he? Prove me wrong then.

I have no idea if he chimed in on abiogenesis. I'm sure there are quotes out there to be mined, if you're interested.

Show me where I said "falsification is dismissed from the practice of science."

Now you're going to play semantic games with this.

Interbane wrote:
Falsification has also been discarded as instrumental in science. I'm sure Popper is turning over in his grave at not being able to defend his ideas.

You're getting really weak here with this childish quibbling.

You're getting really weak here with this childish quibbling.

"Discarded as instrumental" means "no longer instrumental". It doesn't mean "discarded altogether". What you're calling 'quibbling over semantics' is 'paying attention to detail,' which you seem incapable of.

I provided plenty of support showing that falsification is no longer instrumental. When it comes to abiogenesis, your naive falsification has been discarded altogether, rather than 'discarded as instrumental'.

I will no longer respond to your posts but not discard them altogether.