>>13794103He didn't say "biological" evolution, faggot. He said evolution, which usually refers to biological evolution exclusively. Even if it were impossible for life to emerge through chemical processes, that wouldn't have anything to do with biological evolution.
The rest of his argument is even worse by making claims about unfalsifiability. Regarding evolution (not abiogensis), if we found a lifeform whose DNA contained a coded message, if we found fossils that are clearly "out of place," if we found genes in a species that don't appear to match its nearest relatives and could not otherwise be explained.
Evolution is just the explanation for why modern life looks like it shares ancestry with the life around it, so to falsify it would require finding examples that can't be explained through it (or demonstrating that some adaptation really could not evolve naturally, ala "irreducible complexity," though every example commonly given like the eye just ignores the many transitional forms of the eye that still exist in other animals today). Normally, if the model is found to be wrong, then the model is corrected, and this happens all of the time as DNA tests or fossils change opinion on what animals are branched where.
Regarding abiogensis, he's kind of right in that abiogenesis is just a hypothesis for how life could have formed, without any in-depth models beyond "it appears early Earth was awash in organic chemicals, and then life popped out." Amino acids are found in comets and also have been created in the lab while recreating estimated early Earth conditions. Falsifying it would be a lot harder, but then it it's also presented as the most likely explanation, not the only explanation. We could have been seeded (and/or our evolution guided) by aliens or higher beings, sure. If they did, though, they didn't leave any obvious signs. Our existence is hardly a sign given that if we didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to discuss our fortune.