There is a world of difference and choosing not read or responding to nonsense.
View attachment 319912
I don't know how many times it has been repeated, likely over billions, but here goes again.
When creationists provide testable hypotheses they will be treated with respect worthy of legitimate science.
I believe you will find an 8th grade book on the nature of science helpful.
I believe your 8th grade science book IS your problem. You have not started to ask the difficult questions that lie beyond it. When you get to advanced science you have to start asking difficult questions. What can science really tell you?
It is a tool, that is all. Like most tools it can only do some jobs well, some not at all.
As I explained by simple example; which could be a crystal, a block of regular shaped metalon another planet which happens to be designed, (or getting more advanced) either one of Craig Ventners frankenstein cells - or one of the many cells my other half genetically engineers in a biotech lab. It could even be a long nosed dog intelligently manipulated by a breeder :
Unless you withness the ACT of creating or intelligent design , there is generally no indelible mark that allows science to determine what is created/designed from that which has evolved naturally.
So your hypothesis of "show it is created" is born bad understanding. Science cannot in general tell you either way it does not score for either team..
If you have ever studied the arguments on ID which few have, just as few have studied darwin in depth: One of the examples which is often used as a mindgame in intelligent design is a mousetrap. In this case evolutionists tell you you cannot prove it did not occur naturally, however much it may look designed! Science cannot tell unless it witnesses the act.
So You cannot prove all development WAS natural rather than intelligent or created, only that some of the process could happen naturally. It is is far cry logically from they all DID happen naturally. Just as the far off goal (seemingly) of A pathway to the first cell, is only a plausibility argument. It cannot say life happened that way. Darwin postulated multiple starts to life.
Darwins theory is a misnomer - it should be called "some hypothetical processes in late organism development". The minimum cell we know is so hideously complex that the unlikely hood of it occuring in a single step naturally is so staggeringly unlikely it is discountable. Therefore under the premise of evolution, there must many steps on the way to that. Darwin starts a long way along the journey.
Another issue you wrongly declared unscientific because of lack of understanding was irreducible complexity. Life defined by NASA and Harvard is defined functionally. That is "self evolving, self replicating".
Clearly ANY function HAS irreducible complexity. A single molecule cannot do it, because it is simply not complex enough. Self evolving needs a genome. A genome needs structures to interpret it, and in our understanding of it, to create proteins which are used elsewhere in the cell. But the genome itself carries information. Information theory defines quantity of information as entropy which is a minimum complexity to encode information.
Your "science" is too crude. Science deals with patterns in the universe, and therefore the model and process are best suited to those things that repeat or can be repeated which is inanimate objects.
Things with choice, and free will, and particularly one of events are not easily analysed by science. It cannot comment EITHER way.
Do you agree with Darwin when he called life miraculous? It is often left out of discussions of Darwinism!
What I can say is the event of so called "eucharistic miracles" was in some cases witnessed, in other cases it occured in known time and places in a sealed vessel. Forensic science states it was heart tissue and a pathologist stated in one case it was "compelling evidence of creation".
No abiogenesis event has ever been witnessed or documented.
Score: creation 4 abiogenesis 0 on actual forensic evidence.
