There is a question on Skeptics.SE as follows:
If life could spontaneously exist by chance, then why have scientists not been able to create life in the laboratory with controlled experiments? Likewise, if scientists cannot succeed in creating life in the laboratory, then what evidence is there that life could create itself by chance?
I would like to think this question is not only salvageable but an excellent opportunity to highlight logical fallacies and demonstrate the principles of the scientific method.
These sort of questions come up from time to time, and I would like to know what edits (or other actions) are sensible to make in this case so that the question will not be down-voted into oblivion (and likely only to recur) and leave the poster with no real understanding of what they fail to grasp. It seems in this case that the poster lacks some basic concepts of logic, the relationship between observation and conclusion, falsifiability, and sources for some widely accepted facts.
Rather than a response that belittles or dismisses a poster who lacks basic understanding of the concepts inherent to this site, how can we instead educate them?