[unlearner]

"Now please describe a test, and a potential outcome thereof, that can conclusively demonstrate that your hypothesis of life is wrong."

Any instance of life self organizing entirely from lifeless matter which is not the result of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly (assumably by humans). The formation of life in a lab via scientists creating the right precursors, or the right environment, or a primordial soup, etc. would qualify. (If any tools, e.g. nanobots, are required to assemble life, then it does not qualify as abiogenesis.)

Keep in mind the conversation which you are interjecting in concerns why my hypothesis is logically flawed, not whether my hypothesis is actually correct or has been supported as well as some other theory or law.

VadeRetro insists that the statement itself requires that I falsify abiogenesis. (My contention is that abiogenesis cannot be falsified, and I only need for my hypothesis to be falsifiable.) My comparison with the law of gravity is not an indication that I think my hypothesis is comparable to it in general, but that it is not logically flawed.

My statement is verifiable and falsifiable in the same sense that the law of gravity is. The law of gravity is easier to observe at work. It has been substantiated extensively. It has not been proved wrong (though modified of course). Likewise, my hypothesis has the POTENTIAL to be observed and tested. It will probably never be nearly as evident as gravity, but the analogy serves the purpose of showing VadeRetro's argument is logically flawed, rather than my hypothesis.

[Dimensio]

Any instance of life self organizing entirely from lifeless matter which is not the result of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly (assumably by humans).

And yet thus far you have not provided a single coherent reason to explain why such an observation would completely disprove intelligent design. You have utterly refused to justify your claim that "if life can come about without intelligent assembly, then it is impossible for intelligent design to have occured". If you can't justify that, then you don't have a real falsification criteria.

[Condorman]

"Now please describe a test, and a potential outcome thereof, that can conclusively demonstrate that your hypothesis of life is wrong."

Any instance of life self organizing entirely from lifeless matter which is not the result of intelligent (i.e. intentional) assembly (assumably by humans). The formation of life in a lab via scientists creating the right precursors, or the right environment, or a primordial soup, etc. would qualify. (If any tools, e.g. nanobots, are required to assemble life, then it does not qualify as abiogenesis.)

Okay, fine. That sounds reasonable. Now please explain how the failure to observe the above will support your hypothesis.

If I have a hunk of lifeless matter in which life fails to materialize, how can I be sure that it is because of the failure of an intelligent agent to act? It is equally likely that I have kept the matter at the wrong temperature, or haven't waited long enough, or the acidity of the matter is too high, or too low, or I have exposed the matter to insufficient light, or too much, or at the wrong time, or I have 1g too little carbon, or 2g too little carbon, or 3g too little carbon, or 4g too little carbon, or 5g too little carbon . . . or 100g too little carbon, etc, etc, etc.

Your Law of Gravity makes a specific prediction that can be tested for any two given masses. If the force is along the center of mass, the hypothesis is supported, if not, the hypothesis is falsified.

Your Law of Life lends itself to no test that can support or falsify with each result. They are not equivallent.