There is intelligent design.

[shunyadragon]

Of course there is a law of biogenesis, just because its never referenced by evolutionary scientists does not mean it does not exist. Because in our universe life is only observed to come from life, and never do we observe evidence to the contrary, this proves its a law until proven otherwise. Of course this does not mean it will never be broken, I personally believe in the abiogenesis of God, but not in our space time continuum

The problem is, the foundation of evolutionary science has established its self on the belief this law has been violated (at least once) in the universe, and without this law of biogenesis being violated there can not be an origins of life hypothesis without intelligent design. Because we have a true dichotomy here, either life in the universe came into existence by biogenesis (another sentient life) or it came into existence by abiogenesis (non-sentient matter), no third hypothesis can possibly exist. So if evolutionary science categorically rejects one side of a dichotomy, they have no choice but to accept the only other alternative, even if there is an immutable law that states otherwise

Atheistic evolutionary science has painted its self into a theoretical corner that they can't possibly get out of without getting their "feet" all sticky and wet

You need to define how you are using 'law' here. In science 'law' results from consistent falsification of theories and hypothesis over time, ie Laws of thermodynamics. Nothing above fits this use of the concept of 'law' in science.

[IDScience]

Not just because evangelical apologists say so, there isn't.

Any observable reality that has no evidence to the contrary will be a law until proven otherwise. The laws of physics were considered absolute "laws" until contradictions arose

It's not a scientific law if scientists don't use it.

I told you they can't admit its a law because doing so would admit abigenesis is impossible and ID the only other alternative. Atheistic science will blatantly and knowing lie before they let that happen. Do you think the egos in science want to wake up to the headline news "THE CREATIONISTS WERE RIGHT THE WHOLE TIME"? I think not

Oh, you've checked the entire universe, have you?

The operative word used was "observed". And science is established on observation and testing. We can speculate other "laws" of physics in endless mutiverse also, but unless we can test for their existence its not considered science as its defined. Therefore as far as observational science is concerned, biogenesis is a law because its not observed to be violated. And even when science eventually creates life (as they predict), that will also be considered "biogenesis" because its life coming from life

But the amusing part is your hypocritical stance on this subject. You reject God because there is no "observable" evidence for him, and demand observable evidence from theists in order to believe, and then turn around and break your own set of observational rules when it comes to abiogenesis. Have some integrity please.

Nope, that's not how science works.

Yes it is how since works, Newtons law was modified by Einsteins relativity, and the laws of classical physics were modified by quantum physics. But they were considered immutable "laws" of science until proven otherwise

No, that is not the foundation of evolutionary theory.

Try reading my posts a bit slower next time, I said evolutionary "science", (in which abiogenesis is the foundation). I did not say evolutionary "theory" which starts with a single cell

So says your dogma. Not so says science.

No, so says evolutionary scientists. Dawkins admits there is a true dichotomy (only two alternatives). He says in his own words "The only alternative explanation"

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

[Carrikature]

Any observable reality that has no evidence to the contrary will be a law until proven otherwise. The laws of physics were considered absolute "laws" until contradictions arose.

This is a pretty basic idea for you to have gotten horribly wrong. Things aren't laws until proven otherwise. They become laws after having been proven repeatedly.

[IDScience]

You need to define how you are using 'law' here. In science 'law' results from consistent falsification of theories and hypothesis over time, ie Laws of thermodynamics. Nothing above fits this use of the concept of 'law' in science.

I define it as every definition I can find defines it.

One from wiki "A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world"

From our experimental observations, life only comes from life, we have no observable experimental evidence that life from non-life is yet possible

"Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation"

Biogenesis does not posit an original mechanism (other than God, which science rejects) and we never observe a contradiction to it

From Oxford "An observable law relating to natural phenomena:"

Biogenesis is an observable natural phenomenon, what makes it a "law" is that its never observed to be contradicted, therefore until it is contradicted, it remains a law by proper definition

And biogenesis can be falsified by the observation of abiogenesis, and only by the observation of abiogenesis

[IDScience]

This is a pretty basic idea for you to have gotten horribly wrong. Things aren't laws until proven otherwise. They become laws after having been proven repeatedly.

Thats a good one, are your telling me biogenesis has not been proven repeatedly? Thats all we observe in nature despite atheistic science's on going attempts to prove otherwise

And your incorrect, if we find contradictions to an observable phenomenon that have been established as a law (by being proven repeatedly), they no longer are considered immutable laws

[Doug Shaver]

Any observable reality that has no evidence to the contrary will be a law until proven otherwise.

I have been reading stuff written by scientists for nearly 60 years. That is not how they define "law."

The laws of physics were considered absolute "laws"

A lot of nonscientists probably thought so. Real scientists knew better.

Atheistic science will blatantly and knowing lie before they let that happen.

You say so, because your dogma says so.

Do you think the egos in science want to wake up to the headline news "THE CREATIONISTS WERE RIGHT THE WHOLE TIME"? I think not

They wouldn't like it one bit, but there is nothing special about their egos. Scientists are human beings, and no human being likes to discover that they were mistaken about something so important. We atheists who used to be believers understand that, from personal experience, better than most people.

And science is established on observation and testing.

Observation and testing are crucial to the scientific method. It is not all there is to the scientific method.

But the amusing part is your hypocritical stance on this subject. You reject God because there is no "observable" evidence for him, and demand observable evidence from theists in order to believe, and then turn around and break your own set of observational rules when it comes to abiogenesis. Have some integrity please.

Well, speaking of observable evidence, I have observed that when people routinely impugn the intellectual integrity of everyone who disagrees with them, they have no cogent arguments for whatever positions they are trying to defend.

Try reading my posts a bit slower next time, I said evolutionary "science", (in which abiogenesis is the foundation). I did not say evolutionary "theory" which starts with a single cell

Please explain how you distinguish between science and theory.

[Carrikature]

Thats a good one, are your telling me biogenesis has not been proven repeatedly? Thats all we observe in nature despite atheistic science's on going attempts to prove otherwise.

It's not all we observe in nature. What I'm actually telling you is that existing life bringing forth new life is a different subject from how life initially arose. Even the Bible does not portray life as having always existed.

And your incorrect, if we find contradictions to an observable phenomenon that have been established as a law (by being proven repeatedly), they no longer are considered immutable laws

There is no scientific law for which this has happened. Principles aren't considered laws if they're that subject to possible contradictions.