"Creationism can't come up with a single testable, falsifiable claim, let alone confirm it, so it isn't included. Why should that be any other way?"
"Law of Biogenesis. Testable, falsifiable, confirmed. Game, set and match."
Why skip past the good stuff Radar? It's uncanny that someone of your vast ego so consistently skips past this question, whistling nervously. Well, not uncanny perhaps. But embarrassing.
So I just made a scientific statement (above) and now you are going to, hee hee, make me whistle nervously while skipping? What mighty power will you wield?
Radar, how is the impossibility of abiogenesis -
I said that creationism couldn't come up with a single testable, falsifiable claim, let alone confirm it. In response, you provided nothing of the kind. And you can't.
Ah, but I did. The Law of Biogenesis falsifies a naturalistic materialistic view of life, for life does not appear spontaneously and we know that organisms are clearly designed with a remarkable coding system, information and built-in redundancies in both systems and feature choices. The Law of Biogenesis has provided us with consistent and repeatable results for well over 150 years.
Think about each of these questions. Apply all you know about logic and science, try to put aside prejudices and see if you can answer them.
If you really think that the law of biogenesis has the goods, then you should have no problem answering these questions (as you should have no problem answering Jon Woolf's questions, but those also have you running for the hills).
C'mon Radar, can you do it?
Yes, I can. First, specifically, the Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from life. About 150 years of testing confirmed this to be true for higher life forms and eventually even to tiny microorganisms. Spontaneous generation was falsified and abiogenesis is just another term for spontaneous generation.
So, let's say that we are talking about another law, such as gravity. Gravitational forces have been proven conclusively to exist and on our planet we can say simply, barring ourside help, what goes up must come down. In other words, objects fall down.
But Woolf and other commenters do not like gravity because it is not in line with their worldview. What shall they do? Laws of gravity are established. Why, the obvious thing to do is assert that they will do research in ungravity!
Darwinists, how is the impossibility of ungravity -
If you say, don't be ridiculous, gravitational laws have been confirmed and remained unchallenged for many decades. I will then say that the same is true of the Law of Biogenesis. If you say "show me one time something FELL UP", then I will say "show me one time that life poofed into existence."
The Law of Biogenesis remains a law and you religious zealots can pretend it isn't there, rather like a toddler hiding your eyes from someone. But from a logical standpoint you are without argument. You are putting time and resources to waste, like defying Relativity and spending a lifetime seeking to build a time machine, or defying the Laws of Thermodynamics in seeking to prove there is a perpetual motion engine or simply like the scientific and religious community of Galileo's time, preferring their belief in geocentricism to his proof of a heliocentric solar system. You are unscientific religious kooks! But I mean that in the nicest possible way. I would rather that you were both informed and scientific.
The Law of Biogenesis:
"The law of biogenesis states that life only comes from already established life. This very important and fundamental scientific law can be credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others. The findings rooted in repeated scientific experimentation and observation can be summarized as follows, Omne vivum ex ovo, which is Latin for, "all life is from life."
The law of biogenesis is not to be confused with Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law.
Biogenesis and EvolutionThe general theory of evolution requires the violation of this law of science at some point in the distant past. In a letter that Charles Darwin wrote to J.D. Hooker (February 1871), he makes the remarkable suggestion that life may have begun in a;
|“||... warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.  ||”|
Louis Pasteur knew quite well after debunking current thinking that microorganisms do spontaneously arise, stated; "spontaneous generation is a dream," or in French it reads,
|“||La génération spontanée est une chimère.||”|
~ dusts off hands~
Now on to another blog post
Some of these arguments will be taken from the previous post, which is duly linked and attributed, so you can go back and read it here at your leisure. I will not repeat any of the links or references from that post in this one unless there is a particular need. If I put a quotation in blue, it will be from the book, THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K by David Coppedge
"Dr William Dembski is a mathematician and philosopher of science, who has recently transferred to the University of Texas at Irving as theology professor. In his preceding work, The Design Inference,1 Dembski developed the theoretical basis for his concept of ‘Complex Specified Information’ (CSI). Such systems conform to an independently recognizable pattern (i.e., they can be ‘specified’) but have a vanishing probability of arising guided only by natural laws or random processes. Such systems can only be the product of deliberate intelligent design. The key elements of The Design Inference were discussed in this journal2 and overlapping ideas and examples will be avoided here.
In Intelligent Design, Dembski has reviewed many of the earlier ideas in The Design Inference in less technical detail, and added new thoughts and explanations of much relevance to the evolution vs creation debate. Only a few highlights can be illustrated here.
Professor Behe, who wrote the foreword, espouses a sister concept he calls ‘Irreducible Complexity’ (IC), and his own work3 has also been discussed in this journal.4 Systems have IC when a number of components must be present together as an integrated unit for the overall function to be possible. Removal of one part deactivates the system and provides nothing for natural selection to act upon. Behe’s challenge to explain how his biochemical examples could have arisen by any series of steps from a simpler starting point remains unanswered, and his critics have been rebutted on the internet.5
Both IC and CSI have caused much discomfort in the naturalistic scientific community, because the conclusion appears irresistible that, without an intelligent causal agent, current reductionist claims are vacuous. This has gone so far, that a well-known University of Chicago mathematics professor, who taught Dembski complexity theory and was mentioned with gratitude in The Design Inference, asked that his name be removed from that book. This is despite his contribution to the prestigious Cambridge series of technical mathematical books, Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory.
Both Dembski and Behe point out correctly that their approaches to looking at what appear to be intelligently designed functional systems are based on perfectly acceptable scientific methodologies. The theological implications have been carefully downplayed so far. Nevertheless, any reasonable scientific model for origins should not be allowed to ignore details which constrain various materialistic proposals, irrespective of religious convictions.
Behe continues to be publicly coy about his theological viewpoints. In this book Dembski reveals his own thinking in a non-confrontational manner: the biblical claims are reasonable for the intelligent person. We read (p.3), ‘Intelligent design is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action.’ The first aspect was focused on earlier1,2 and now he continues with the next two aspects."
What is most important to note from the above, and indeed from much of the article is that Darwinists make a number of huge mistakes in their thinking and they are in fact so huge and staggeringly absurd that people don't think critically about them. Darwinism should have been discarded when the design implications of DNA and cellular structures and systems became known.
Any ordinary person walking down a gravel road would, when coming to an automobile parked by the side of the road, would recognize that the automobile was conceived, designed and built by someone using intelligence and creativity. Darwinists expect us to walk down the "road" of scientific research and, when coming upon a human cell (more complex than a mere automobile, by the way) we are expected to believe that it just somehow by a series of happy accidents just kind of happened to happen with no design or purpose or intelligence or creativity. Yet we closely examine a cell and we find complex coding, tremendous amounts of information and creative ways of providing redundancies and planned-for contingencies. How can this be? How did everyone get hoodwinked?
"In The Biotic Message6, Walter ReMine suggests there are imprints in the biological record which allow us to surmise there is but a single Creator who uses unifying concepts such as DNA, RNA, proteins, and ATP. Further, there is too much variety to be accommodated by any evolutionist theory of common descent.7"
Okay,everyone did NOT get hoodwinked. There have always been great men of science who follow a question to the end. Some questions have answers that involve a Creator. To deny this is to live in a world of just-so stories that would make Rudyard Kipling scoff.
Francis Bacon believed that one must test and deduct and apply logic to problems, looking to find answers to questions by reasoning and testing rather than appeals to authority. His "The New Organon" provided a basis for scientific methodology based on reason both deductive and inductive but dependent upon observation and previously proven laws rather than the establishment of an axiom followed by a rigorous attempt to defend it. Here is the essence of what he taught:
The scientific method consists of the following steps:
- Observe some aspect of the universe or natural world.
- Define the aspect through a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
- Use the hypothesis to then predict, or essentially form experiments that compare what you predicted through a hypothesis and what actually happens.
- Test those predictions by repeated experimentation for further observation.
- Modify the hypothesis in light of the results.
- Repeat steps four and five until there are no discrepancies between hypothesis, prediction and observation. 
Step three - Darwinism identifies natural selection and is correct in part about the functionality thereof. Edward Blyth was the creationist who first proposed the operation of natural selection as a means by which God had designed creatures to be preserved by being able to adjust to varying conditions.:
- Knowledge is power.
- Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper.
- Money is like muck, not good except that it be spread.
- Discretion in speech is more than eloquence.
- Choose the life that is most useful, and habit will make it the most agreeable.
- To choose time is to save time.
- Books must follow sciences, and not sciences books.
- God has placed no limits to the exercise of the intellect that he has given us, on this side of the grave.
- Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
- The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits but not when it misses.
- A prudent question is one-half wisdom.
- Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.
- To read without reflecting, is like eating without digesting.
Francis Bacon said, "The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits but not when it misses"
Darwinism is nothing but misses. Roger Bacon sought to help mankind avoid the errors of superstition and magic. Too bad Darwinism is pretty much nothing but superstition and magic.
"...It could be argued that, rather than science vs. religion, the debate was not about the Bible at all, but about experimental science vs Greek philosophy. Galileo’s opponents were primarily academics and professors, not churchmen. To complicate matters, the Catholic church itself had compromised Biblical teachings with pagan Greek ideas about nature. Dava Sobel explains that Thomas Aquinas “grafted the fourth-century-B.C. writings of Aristotle onto thirteenth-century Christian doctrine. The compelling works of Saint Thomas Aquinas had reverberated through the Church and the nascent universities of Europe for hundreds of years, helping the word of Aristotle gain the authority of holy writ, long before Galileo began his book about the architecture of the heavens” (Sobel, p. 152). It was Aristotle, not Scripture, that taught the immutability and perfection of the heavenly spheres in contradistinction to the corruption of the earth. Finding blemishes on the moon and spots on the sun violated Aristotelian teachings, but not a word of Scripture. Galileo’s “heresy” was against Aristotle, not the Bible! He wrote, “To prohibit the whole science would be but to censure a hundred passages of Holy Scripture which teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are marvelously discerned in all His works and divinely read in the open book of Heaven.”
Galileo believed that “Holy Scripture and Nature are both emanations from the divine word: the former dictated by the Holy Spirit, the latter the observant executrix of God’s commands” (Sobel, p. 64). There was no contradiction between the two, in his view, but he distrusted the fallibility of human interpretation: “Holy Scripture cannot err and the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. I should only have added that, though Scripture cannot err, its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways.”
"...Much has been made of “Pascal’s Wager,” a philosophical challenge usually unfairly oversimplified as follows: If you choose Christianity and it is false, you lose nothing. If you reject Christianity and it is true, you lose everything. Skeptics (and many Christians) feel this is a weak argument to become a Christian. It is, but it is not what Pascal meant. James Kiefer explains that the Wager is an educated choice, not a flip of the coin. Having decided that the evidence for Christianity is strong, and having decided that union with Christ is a worthy goal in life, it is the best bet to train for it like an athlete would train for the highest prize, even though the athlete cannot be sure he will win or the contest will even occur. Kiefer says, “Obviously, if Christ is an illusion, then nothing will move me closer to Him, and it does not matter what I do. But if He is not an illusion, then obviously seeking to love Him, trust Him, and obey Him is more likely to get me into a right relation with Him than the opposite strategy. And so it will be the one I take.” Understanding this, the Wager is not a blind hope that I’ll find myself on the right side after I die; it is a positive choice that will order my life and give me peace, joy, and purpose in the present. To avoid misrepresenting Pascal’s Wager, we encourage readers to read the argument in his own inimitable words in the Pensées. When used properly, it’s still a powerful argument for accepting Christ..."
(1) An emphasis on experiment instead of reason.
(2) Publication of experimental results.
(3) Popularization of scientific discoveries.
(4) Collaboration of scientists in professional societies.
(5) Mathematical formulations of laws.
(6) Putting all claims about nature, no matter the reputation of the authority, to the test of experiment.
Science owes its very existence to Christian creationists who fought against axiomatic, superstitious and magical thinking in favor of step-by-step investigation. Darwinism is on the side of Descartes and Aristotle and Merlin. Creation science is on the side of reasonable and logical investigation as established by the greats like Bacon and Boyle and Maxwell.