Translation into plain English: Trying to defend one brain-dead ideological doctrine is bad enough; who would want to defend two of them at the same time?
Yes it can be ruled out. If one looks at it in a reasonable manner it must be said that abiogenesis is impossible. I quite realize that just because every example of life arising has been shown to be from other life does not rule out the possibility that we may someday, somehow find such an example. However, since such has not been seen in thousands of years in numerous examples which have been looked at, it is certainly an extremely reasonable statement.
In addition, in my post #549 I give various theoretical explanations why it cannot happen. If you can refute those explanations, based on very well documented and very well accepted scientific facts, then perhaps your statement that abiogenesis is possible could be true. However, I have not seen (and no one seems to be able to state) even a hypothesis as to how abiogenesis is possible given the scientific facts about life of which we are aware at present.
The origin of life on earth, however, is not addressed by the theory of evolution.
Formally that is correct and I do not deny that the theory itself does not address it. My point is that evolution cannot be true if abiogenesis is false. Evolution claims that all species descended from simple one celled creatures without the help of divine intervention in a totally materialistic manner. If life was created by a divine being then there is absolutely no reason to preclude divine intervention in His creation after life arose. In fact, given the unlikelihood and difficulties that need to be assumed to make evolution work, divine intervention is the most likely answer. So yes, a materialistic explanation of life's development does require that abiogenesis be true.