It only needs to simulate the final stage of this infinite process.
There is no "final stage" just as there is no distinct species separation between zebras and horses, in actuality. And just as there is no distinct, technically precise notion of what life is, against which to construct your proposed experiment. Have you really no sense of how ludicrous it is to claim that our supposed incapacity to construct life from "scratch" will demonstrate ID, while at the same time claiming you don't need a rigorous definition of life to perform this experiment?
So now you are claiming abiogenesis is what science thinks?
Yes, as of the year 2000, there was a way to begin to see this. See Woese, and the recent changes at the root of the tree of life.
Verification and falsification are not necessary prerequisites to think this. It is not just assumed, the conclusion has already been reached? On what basis is this conclusion science?
On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up. In exactly the same manner that we concluded that evolutionary theory explains the bones of creatures we've dug up that no longer seem to exist as living creatures. Maybe you should make an effort to understand what science actually consists of before cracking wise (and fracking endlessly) about it.
If life came to exist through an infinitely long, unguided process, you would have as much challenge of proving it as proving God exists via the scientific method.
Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science, so it matters not to the extent of a fart in a hurricane.
Only? So physical laws are irrelevant?
Are you trying to bait me, or are you really this clueless? Just as a general guideline--you may assume from now on that there are a great many things I believe may be so, most of which I will fail to mention in any given note I may write.
You already implied that causality is not allowed to get in the way of abiogenesis. (Of course if it is troubling for ID then it must be valid. /s) Now you are saying lab tests are irrelevant. I assume because physical laws are irrelevant.
I don't believe I said that. I believe I said lab tests aren't the only way to do science, and I believe I also said the lab test you propose is absurd, and quite likely will never occur in actuality, because nobody cares, or will ever care, sufficiently to bother.--for one reason, because its results wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument, whichever way the experiment works out.
I mean if understanding the correlation of physical laws to the formation of life is too costly, then those laws must be unimportant.
I have no idea what you are on about here--nothing, I suspect. Physical laws are deeply involved in every scientific experiment or proposed field study.
Never mind that we spend millions testing claims of super string theory when they are not even falsifiable.
There is strong consensus that an experiment currently scheduled for 2010 will be potentially falsifiable. Several astronomy projects on a currently feasable schedule also appear to be potentially falsifiable.