What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)

So if life does not appear in a bottle of milk in the matter of weeks this means that life can not appear in volumes the size of the oceans over millions of years across billions of planets? I think you are a bit off on this one.

Learn to read.

At times we can determine if a non biological artifact is the result of outside interference and influence. Read the OP. In it I post examples.When someone can present the same level of evidence regarding biological things then we can consider that they might be a product of outside interference and influence.So far NO Creationist or Intelligent (talk about and oxymoron) Design marketeer has produced comparable evidence.

Our eyes have two types of light detectors, rods and cones. The cones are mainly in the central part of our retina and need bright lightthey detect colour. The rods are in the peripheral part and are good in dim light but can’t distinguish colours.There are three types of cone. One is sensitive mainly to red, a second to green and a third blue. Each of them sends a signal to the brain if it detects light. But the signal by itself says nothing about colour, only about the brightness of the light it can detect. Yet from the simple system, we can distinguish millions of different colours. Here’s how.If a small beam of red light hits three adjoining cones, only the red one will fire, sending a signal to the brain. But this signal by its self doesn’t say ‘red’it is only the lack of signal from the adjoining blue and green cones that makes the brain see ‘red’.But what about yellow? Here, a beam of yellow light, wavelength about 580 nm, will still land on three cones. But as they have a range of detectable wavelengths, both the red and green cones will detect the light. When the brain receives signals from adjoining red and green cones, it sees ‘yellow’. If the light is somewhat greenish yellow, the green cone will send a slightly stronger signal, so the brain sees a greener shade of yellow.The brain can distinguish between many different wavelengths of light by how they affect the three types of cone. And if all three are fired equally strongly, the brain sees white.

It is also irrelevant. If color vision provides an advantage it will be selected.
There is no mystery there.There is NO evidence of any outside interference or influencing entity.

So where in this experiment does it demonstrate that life can not come from non-life?

Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and that the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is not due to spontaneous generation[2] but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex ovo).Bottle en col de cygne (Swan neck duct) used by Pasteur
Institut Pasteur de LilleHe exposed boiled broths to air in vessels that contained a filter to prevent all particles from passing through to the growth medium, and even in vessels with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not allow dust particles to pass. Nothing grew in the broths unless the flasks were broken open; therefore, the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than spontaneously generated within the broth. This was one of the last and most important experiments disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. The experiment also supported germ theory.

or should I provide some reason for my assertion before we even begin to debate it?

In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment" (referring to his swan-neck flask experiment wherein he proved that fermenting micro-organisms would not form in a flask containing fermentable juice until an entry path was created for them

Similar to the question I asked slevesque, when scientists show that life can arise from non-life, will you admit that an intelligent designer is not needed for life to be here?

You DO realize that Pasteur's work wasn't a universal truth

That's what I thought. You're going to hide behind the fallacy that the scientists did it, thereby showing only that intelligence can create life.The scientists would be taking components that exist naturally, adding things like electricity, which exists naturally, and trying to get life. Would you consider that showing that it could have happened naturally, or would you say that the scientists were a necessary part of that process?

Ok. Then I expect to see you back here in probably 5 to 10 years, when we do exactly that.

Is ice freezing in a refrigerator evidence that water does not freeze naturally?

I'll make a deal with you. If the rapture comes, I'll convert to Christianity, if scientists show that life can occur naturally, you accept science over dogma.How about it?

How hard can this be to understand? The distinction between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis is explained in the high school biology texts used in essentially every US public high school. Well, at least the texts that creationists haven't gotten to.

No, it's not different. The DNA interacts with other molecules. That interaction produces changes in the surrounding environment. It's physical all the way down. The encoding in DNA is semantically flexible, as we analyse it, but in the cell the exact same chemical processes that drive protein-protein, protein-lipid or protein-ion interactions are involved in protein-DNA interactions.No special explanation is required for DNA interactions that is not required for protein-protein interactions.

It's physical all the way down

You knew that there was overwhelming evidence for macroevolution