Science is False

I believe my opponent made a few fallacies:1. "I have not done personal research"A fallacy at it's finest. Just because I haven't touched, seen, smelt, or heard Abiogenesis directly, that doesn't mean it's not true. Pro might be moving the goalposts a bit, possibly demanding a video of myself doing Abiogenesis. If you don't believe the process of Abiogenesis, or any other biological, archeological, physical, etc., just go to google. Actually, I'll do that for you. (I admit I can't think of other good science things, but there's a lot) Yes, abiogenesis isn't really a fact, as much as a hypothesis. BUT it still works as an explanation of how life could form from inorganic matter. Pro must *scientifically* prove that abiogenesis isn't *scientifically* possible.Abiogenesis: https://en.wikipedia.org... , http://studytoanswer.net... , http://www.asa3.org...I'm expecting Pro to just disregard all 3 links, but that's ignoring evidence altogether. (If you want a video of me, too bad. If you did want a video, you may think it's editing or something, so I'm not going to bother.)2. Irrelevant claimsPro states "First a Computer cannot make discoveries. It can only do what it is programmed to do. Nothing else. It detects things within the parameters and tot he specifications the computer is programmed to detect; It cannot make discoveries." Oh, computers can't discover. Uhhh... what does that have to do with anything? Even atomic numbers and the "chart of elements", otherwise known as the Periodic Table. How does this even help what case?"Newton believed in God** as a side note" So? I, too, believe in a God, but that does NOT prove anything. A debate is on evidence and logic, not one's beliefs. Just because Issac Newton believes in God does not mean-- wait, what does it mean again?3. Ad homonym (just pointing these out)I see quite a few insults in Pro's argument. Not really directed to me as much as everyone else. Let's see..."... a perfect example of the fallacy children and bigots reoccurring present as arguments on the internet." That's like, at least 60% of the people on this website!"... that any finds regarding such a scientific experiment suggested abiogenesis lead to life; that the scientists were qualified; or that the scientists conclusions... " This isn't that major, but he's kind of questioning the scientists' capabilities. Moving on..."This scientific theory is made by homosapiens. So my book written by homosapiens is correct." Attacking the world once again! Calling people things does nothing, except possibly damage your reputation. (Note: he said "Bible was written by people", so I don't see how 'homosapien' can't be an insult)"Rich people pay tons of money for you to be told what will help produce an arrogant+ignorant following of belligerent fools." This one feels a bit directed to me. Probably not Pro's intention for calling me a "fool" for believing in science, but sure seems like that has been done."The words of man, when reinforced with mountains of cash, gas and asss, are not worth a damn-nation of fools defending them needlessly as though they are facts, when no evidence suggest that they are." Ad homonym. Doesn't prove anything.Again, I wasn't the victim of these, but the world was a victim. Also, ad homonym proves nothing.Some things Pro must prove/disprove:- Pro must prove why abiogenesis is impossible. Yes, it's conjecture. BUT that doesn't automatically mean it's downright false, it's just uncertain.- Pro must explain what kind of debates we shall refer to, which use "the fallacy of science", as I'll call it.- I would like Pro to recommend a variety of scientific topics to include in Rounds 3 and 4. Since abiogenesis is merely a (reasonable) hypothesis, we'd be at a stalemate if we just went on about that one subject. If Pro wants to, we can still talk about abiogenesis, but we should have variety.- Pro must explain why science doesn't work/what fallacies it runs on.And with that, let's hear Pro's reasoning on why science if invalid.