Oh yes, I am well aware of this, which is one of the reasons why I have not bothered to respond to the other users on this topic. I hope my last response did not make you think otherwise.
Ahhhh… I think I see the issue here now. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be presupposing materialism as the true nature of reality. If so, then I would agree: It is not possible under that perspective. In fact, I would say the vast majority of theists would back your assessment as well because most of them hold to a substance dualistic model that is inherently untestable (and logically incoherent in my opinion). However, most people often forget or don’t realize that there is a third option: Idealism. Let me bring some context before I elaborate on this:
What is Objective Reality?
Realism is the view point that external things are real and exist independently of mind in the form of either materialism or idealism. Materialism is the viewpoint that material things shape our ideas and ideologies. In contrast, idealism states that ideas come first and then changes in material things are pursued in accordance with those ideas.
Substance dualism is the view that material things and ideas are both fundamental substances of existence (I.e. supernatural vs natural). Furthermore, this viewpoint states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot. Where the immortal souls occupy an independent realm of existence distinct from that of the physical world.
Substance dualism is unparsimonius and materialism has been disconfirmed so many times by quantum physics experiments that a consensus on the matter has developed [just ask for it].
This leaves us with a form of idealism that places digital information and human consciousness as representing objective reality where space-time is influenced and emerges from.
Well, I mentioned that If the biochemist applies the procedure to a different pre-biotic condition, it would be another attempt at falsification without including the second experiment. However, this leads me to your response…
Yes, this would be the case but only if I was trying to extend the hypothesis outside the bounds of biochemistry or biology and into physics. But, this hypothesis’s scope is only within the bounds of biochemistry and potentially biology and thus the experiment I proposed would falsify it completely under those terms and scope.
Well first off, I never claimed within the theory itself that this designer is all-powerful. Instead, those are just the implications of the theory if it’s true. Secondly, if the attribute of omni-potent was the only attribute this designer would posses, then your assessment would probably be correct. However, if it’s true, the theory implies that the designer has other attributes, such as omniscience and omnibenevolent, that would require this designer to stay consistent with those other attributes or else the hypothesis would be rendered logically inconsistent and , as you know, every model must be logically coherent for it to be considered science because it is depended on it.
AND, if you hadn’t noticed, I am trying to stay within the confines of the hypothesis that was inferred based upon previous experiments and observations not the bible. 
Again, I feel like you are presupposing materialism when you say this where consciousness and digital information are emergent properties of matter.
Well, I have not showed you how we could yet so I don’t blame you.