As for the thread itself, I understand the motive of the op, but clearly a model can only yield conclusions put in the model. If only apple and pear are in the model, it cannot say banana. Man did not put God in the model so it cannot by definition determine God or banana as an output. That does not invalidate God or banana as a mechanism or conclusion only the limitation of our model. So proving miracles by science is philosophically impossible even if miraculous in reality! The model can only say “ don’t know”
Onward. Such as abiogenesis doesn’t need falsification, it is a speculation so needs verification, there is nothing to falsify. I’m not against it but it is not a given.
Evolution is more of a problem because it is not a single coherent whole. Dogs with longer legs can be bread even if it was Gods design!
So some of evolution is clearly valid regardless. It does not disprove God if true.
Also in the narrow terms of the OP - evolution , abiogenesis are set somehow as a dichotomy to theistic origin of life. That is a false dichotomy.
now to a tangible test,
Darwin’s ToE is best described as common descent , One part of the evolution framework.
The OP may be unaware.
Darwin himself states a falsification he states something along the lines: “ if any life can be found that is not the result of successive small change it will disprove my theory”.
As I have pointed out, the forensic evidence of so called Eucharistic miracles ( and other phenomena - not just that - take forensics of the Cochabamba statute) show live cells that appeared which did not come from successive small change. It clearly disproves Darwin in his own terms.
It does not of itself invalidate cells occuring from Darwin’s path as well so in that sense Darwin was too hasty.
