Actually you are the one mis-interpreting the law of biogenesis. I provided the citation of it's wording
Where did you provide this? I must have missed it. All you have provided is the definition "all life comes from preexisting living matter", which is wrong. You certainly haven't provided a link to back up your definition of the LoB.
I'm sorry, but you just have hold of the wrong end of the stick. The LoB is not what you think it is. If I'm wrong, provide a citation.
I hope we can agree at least that there is a law of biogenesis.
So your source for your definition of the LoB is the Huxley article. There are several problems with this.
That address took place in 1870, hardly a good source for representing the views of modern science. One might as well ask why the theory of bodily humours is not taught as fact. Science has moved on somewhat since the nineteenth century.
Huxley was just one man. Much as I respect him, just because Huxley says it, does not make it so.
Most strikingly, the very source you cite disagrees with you as to the all-encompassing remit of the LoB. You say that it means "all life comes from preexisting living matter", but in your cited article, Huxley says;
quote: But though I cannot express this conviction of mine too strongly, I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis ever has taken  place in the past, or ever will take place in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call "vital" may not, some day, be artificially brought together. All I feel justified in affirming is, that I see no reason for believing that the feat has been performed yet.
And looking back through the prodigious vista of the past, I find no record of the commencement of life, and therefore I am devoid of any means of forming a definite conclusion as to the conditions of its appearance. Belief, in the scientific sense of the word, is a serious matter, and needs strong foundations. To say, therefore, in the admitted absence of evidence, that I have any belief as to the mode in which the existing forms of life have originated, would be using words in a wrong sense. But expectation is permissible where belief is not; and if it were given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the earth was passing through physical and chemical conditions, which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancy, I should expect to be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.
This has already been pointed out to you by other members, so I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are continuing with this line of argument. It has been refuted. The article makes clear over and over again that the LoB as Huxley understands it is referring to spontaneous generation, not the first origins of life as a whole, which he regards as an open question, one to which he judges that the likely answer is abiogenesis, in the modern sense.
It is also worth noting that physicists are able to track the progress of the universe back to a period just after the big bang, when the universe was the size of a grapefruit. Unless you think that life could exist in a grapefruit sized universe, it seems pretty clear that life must at some point have come from non-life. Even the Bible has God creating Adam from dirt, a clear passage from non-life to life, so I really can't imagine what your objection to abiogenesis is.
Do you see those words in yellow? They contradict your entire argument.
No, they are the very essence of my argument. Huxley was not a stupid man, therefore he was aware that no-one can commit to a universal negative statement. An example of such a statement would be "life cannot derive from non-life", which is the exact sort of statement that you seem to be insisting upon. That he was willing to consider exceptions to the LoB proves that he never intended it to be an absolute, binding across all time and space.
Just because you are unaware of evidence to support abiogenesis doesn't mean that there is none. That is another fallacy. You have repeatedly ignored CS's invitation to examine such evidence. No-one here is saying that abiogenesis can be described in every detail, indeed it is still highly tentative, but that is very far from a complete lack of evidence. Just Google "evidence for abiogenesis" and you will find a wealth of links to pages, both pro and anti, discussing this evidence.
Furthermore, I fail to see how the phrase "I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith." refutes my point that Huxley's comments are nearly 140 years out of date and do not constitute a fair representation of the modern scientific consensus. Nor does it refute my point that Huxley's opinion is not holy writ, indeed it supports it, given that Huxley did not insist that his opinion was law.
By the way, I strongly suggest that you drop your condescending tone. It belittles you.
Or to put it another way, you can't point out anywhere where your precious law of biogenesis prevents the model presented in the video. You can only pour scorn, try to score semantic points over terminology and argue from incredulity.Mutate and Survive
You started this thread asking why the law of biogenesis wasn't taught in schools, but it quickly descended into a discussion about whether or not the LoB falsified abiogenesis. You now seem to be saying that it doesn't, in stark contrast to your earlier comments.
Or to put it another way, you can't point out anywhere where your precious law of biogenesis prevents the model presented in the video.
Why would I want to argue a strawman argument. No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life.
In which case, why have you been banging on about it since post #1, if not to discredit theories of abiogenesis? It's certainly a bit of a departure from Message 15, where you say;
Abiogenesis is quite imaginative and is not falsifiable.
You seem pretty confused about this. Since you now admit that the "law of biogenesis" does nothing to falsify abiogenesis, it would seem that your original post is answered;
The LoB does not contradict abiogenesis.
Where it is not taught in schools this is because it is outdated and no longer considered relevant.
You may as well drop the veneer of scientific objectivity now and just admit that you want the biogenesis in classrooms and abiogenesis out because you have decided that one conflicts with your religious views and one does not.
If I am wrong, then will one, just one of you present real scientific data that suggests in any way shape or form that abiogenesis has happened.
That's not the point is it though? Your position has (mostly) been that the law of biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis. You have been shown that the interpretation of the LoB that contradicts abiogenesis is not accepted by modern science, so no contradiction exists. Now you want evidence for abiogenesis. I don't think this is what you really want, because you have already been given this kind of evidence and all you could do was express incredulity.
You have admitted that the LoB does not falsify abiogenesis;
No scientific laws prevent anything. Scientific laws describe how nature works. That's what the law of biogenesis is. It is the reality of where life comes from. It says nothing about whether or not abiogenesis is possible. It only says that since we've been observing life, all life comes from life. That's science.
You have had your questions answered. The LoB very often is taught in schools, mostly from a historical perspective. Where it is not taught it is because it is no longer taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Abiogenesis is taught because, despite your remaining unconvinced, the weight of scientific opinion is that abiogenesis is important.
Re: There's no evidence for the existence of the non-natural
How do you explain something you have no evidence for? Another fallacy. I have been begging for evidence that life can come from non-living matter. Not one of you have shown any evidence. The best you've done is produce an imaginative annimation film.
Then what is it about the model presented in the film that you find so unbelievable? What part of the model do you disagree with and, vitally, how can you demonstrate that any part of it is false?
I'm not just looking for vague hand-waving here. What specific step in the process outlined in the video can you demonstrate is not possible?
The theory of Biogenesis did falsify the theory that life could come from non-life.
You don't falsify a theory with a theory kid. You falsify a theory with observations.
Also, just for the record, your statements about abiogenesis being a possibility and abiogenesis being falsified are completely contradictory when using the definition of falsification that is common to Bluejay, Catholic Scientist, Rahvin, me and the rest of the English-speaking world. Something is either considered possible or it is falsified, not both.
This is why people keep accusing you of saying that abiogenesis is impossible; you say that it has been falsified. Of course, to do that would be tricky. To falsify abiogenesis in the broad sense of the word would require that you falsify, via observation, every conceivable abiogenetic model, a Sisyphean task indeed. Certainly any given specific model of abiogenesis could be falsified, but you seem reticent about taking a stab at this.
ABE; Thanks to Moose and Bluegenes for spotting the mistake in this post. What can I say... It was late :o