Abiogenesis is speculative, without evidence (Talk.Origins)

Claim CB050:

Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.

Source:
 * Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 50-52.

CreationWiki response:

While this is true, part of scientific testing is falsification. Abiogenesis and theories thereof are not falsifiable since a negative result may just mean that the right conditions were not used. Simply put, there is no experimental or observational failure that would make the supporters of abiogenesis conclude that it is impossible. In fact scientific problems arising from areas like Thermodynamics and Information theory are dismissed as not applying to abiogenesis. This is because abiogenesis is a philosophical necessity of absolute naturalism, rather than a scientific concept.

On another part of the Talk.Origins website these telling quotes can be found when reading the article, Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations by Ian Musgrave regarding abiogenesis.

The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two...

True, but none of this work is even close to actual abiogenesis. The most this work has dealt with is the synthesis of amino acids and some simple proteins. None have shown synthesis of RNA and DNA, let alone the large degree of organized complexity in even the simplest of living cells.

While some real scientific work has been done in nonbiological synthesis of some of life’s basic building blocks, abiogenesis itself remains nothing but untestable speculation.

L'abiogenèse est spéculative, sans évidence (Talk.Origins)