Abiogenesis has certainly been scientifically disproven and the disproof has only mounted since the time of Pasteur. Read the following and let me see even a hypothesis for life arising from non-life which accounts for the scientifically known facts detailed below:
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
I just want to know if this is your statement or is this from another source? I cannot refute some of the evidence or figures displayed in this post only because my studies and pursuits lie elsewhere. Will you concede that there might be another way for evolution/abiogenesis to proceed? Is it possible that we just don't understand all of the facts yet? I'm going to play objective observer here and say yes, ID is a possibility (although it does not have the proof that you demand from evolutionists), but in the same light, even with all of YOUR facts and figures, evolution shows a possibility, no matter how small, of being legitimate. Do you think that it is possible that in 20 years, there will be a breakthrough in this field which shows how abiogenesis could have more easily and more probably happened?
Also, how do you know that evolution has never been witnessed? What would you demand as an evolution event to witness? Before 100 or so odd years ago, evolution wasn't even an idea. Prior to this, evolution could have been witnessed and dismissed. Prior to an alphabet, evolution could have been witnessed and forgotten. We are dealing with 100 years of time, which quite possibly isn't enough. Also, there are a lot of areas of the world that even in the past 100 years, people aren't around in. New species are discovered every day in some parts of South America, how old these species are nobody knows. This isn't something that makes a loud bang when it happens, so it may take some time before further evidence is discovered...
Pasteur: Proved only the non-spontaneous generation of fully formed cells.
Smallest living cell, 1 million base pair example: Based on fully formed cells.
Chicken and egg "problem": concerns fully formed cells.
Evasion, avoidance, (deliberate?) misunderstanding.
So fire up those neurons, here we go again: What evidence do you have that insists that life must have jumped from zero to fully formed cell in a single step?