Quote
If by untestable you mean can we test that a particular method of abiogenesis occurred 3.5 billion years ago, then it is untestable. However the method is not untestable.
The questions concerning abiogenesis are along the lines of..."Could iron sulfides have formed some of the energy transfer pathways necessary to initiate a form of lifelike compounds? Tests can be done to see if that is a possibility. So the methods that are hypothesized can be tested and can fail those tests (falsifiable).

So this then is a valid CS hypothesis:
On the third day, when He made the dry land appear, could God have used iron sulfides to..." Again, it wouldn't mean God had to do it that way.

Science can test the materials and their properties. The results are expected to be repeatable, etc. The same results, however can be applied equally to either model. So how could one discriminate and call one set of tests "scientific" and the other "religious".?

If abiogenesis is to have a proper hypothesis, this hypothesis will have to distinguish it from the alternatives.

Okay, a brief scan of the wiki & "Deep-hot biosphere" model of Gold caught my eye. I think something like this can be distinguished, but could it be falsified?

That's the whole problem. Any little baby-step hypothesis will apply to all; and any hypothesis that's distinct is unfalsifiable.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson