Quote
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.
CS means "creation scientist" I assume. Yes, that is absolutely the right question for a creation scientist to ask, except for the "On the third day, when God made the dry land appear" part. All he then has to do is design an experiment whereby he can get God to manipulate the iron sulfides to form primitive energy transfer pathways. And, of course be able to show it was God doing it. Otherwise that question degenerates into "iron sulfides may have provided the first primitive energy transfer pathways".

Quote
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".?
When you add things to the question/hypothesis, you must test those things. For example, you believe the Earth is young (a guess from your "on the third day statement), but almost all scientists have concluded the evidence shows the earth is very old. We should not argue age of the Earth here, I will join you in another thread if you wish to start it. So, a scientist researching abiogenesis makes a hypothesis that may state "billions of years ago" because he feels that the Earth has been shown to be billions of years old and he can point to those experiments and research to show this to be a plausible assumption. Unfortunately, you cannot point to any definitive experimental results to show that God made dry land on the third day. Therefore, that part of your hypothesis must be supported with experimental evidence within the experiment or in another experiment before it could be accepted at face value.

Quote
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.
You are assuming that God is written out of the equation altogether by the way the hypothesis is worded. The exact sequence of events written in Genesis may be excluded, but God is not, He is just not tested for. The hypothesis "Iron sulfides....blah, blah, blah" only describes what may have happened. Since scientists have not been able to design an experiment to provide evidence that differentiate God's hand from naturally occurring factors, they cannot say in the experiment's conclusion that God, Ra, Juno, Shiva or Allah manipulated the iron and sulfur together to form the first primitive energy pathways. It would not be a conclusion drawn from the evidence, therefore not scientific.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke