“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.
Just like I said. You set your own unattainable standard of acceptable evidence for one idea, but your own absurdly low bar for ideas that suit you.
Biologists who spend their careers researching such matters are satisfied that they have realistic approaches to studying abiogenesis. Along you come and declare it all invalid even though it does not appear (from the info your page) that you are trained in this field or work in it. Then you throw in that I am a pedant.
If nothing else, you are entertaining. Shall I say LOL?