What a bizarre question. Abiogenesis can be studied scientifically, per the scientific method. It can also be approached unscientifically, and has been.
I sense you have a variable definition of proof. If the outcome is not consistent with what you desire, it is not proof. If it is consistent, it is. I have run into people who approach science this way for decades, so it is nothing new to me.
I don't doubt that you can "prove" anything you want and deny that there is even so much as evidence for anything you don't want to believe. To describe the way that biologists approach their research as the "same old crap" gives you away as an ideologue who has no interest in advancing science.
“What a bizarre question. Abiogenesis can be studied scientifically, per the scientific method. It can also be approached unscientifically, and has been.”
OK, I forgot I am dealing with a pedant, so I need to phrase my questions very precisely and sidestep the intent of the question.
Rather than asking, “Do you consider the study of abiogenesis (the origin of the first living cell) to be “scientific”? I should have asked:
Do you consider the modern theory (hypothesis?) of abiogenesis to be scientific? According to that theory (or hypothesis), the first living cell fell into place at random in a “primordial soup.” If so, please explain how it can be falsified.
I’m just trying to get people like you to use your God-given brain for one minute. If you think about it, you will realize that the modern notion of abiogenesis is every bit as “unfalsifiable” as you claim that ID is.
How can anyone possibly disprove the idea that the first living cell fell together at random at some time in the distant past? To do so, one would need to know the precise molecular arrangement of the entire earth for the past few billion years.