Not at all. Are you suggesting that building a super-collider the size of the solar system is only "very challenging" and not statistically impossible in our lifetimes?
I'd say it's both things. However, it doesn't matter that it cannot be accomplished in our lifetimes. There are plenty of instances of scientific theories being only experimented many years after their initial development. These are no different.
If you are, there really isn't much left to say is there? The problem is the "theoretical disprovability" is not wrong or bad in and of itself, but becomes a blanket to throw over other reasonable questions that the arguer would rather not tackle.
Now, I think we have reached the heart of the matter. You're disagreement is not with me or anyone else in the thread, but science itself. Science "throws the blanket of theoretical disprovability" over questions it would rather not tackle, specifically because it seeks to only study the events of the physical universe, not the metaphysical. It is perfectly fine to disagree with this assertion, but you argument is not "ID is science" but that "ID should be science". These are two different things.
We have nothing in science to address the origin of life (as agreed and posted by most people on this thread, many times per my prodding)
We have plenty of theories, evolution just isn't one of them, and they are not complete. I've mentioned several of them a couple of times and all of them are disprovable. For example, the idea of inorganic molecules and lightning can form basic organic compounds. That hypothesis was tested and found to be accurate. It's not unreasonable to suggest then that it could have played a role in the formation of life.
As for your argument that we can't know what the universe, or Earth for that matter, was like before life came to be, I disagree with that and I'm actually unsure how you could arrive at that position. I've never heard of a case where information becomes totally and irrevokably lost. It's one of the principles of Physics as I understand it.
If its truly the latter, could you explain to me why prominent evolution proponents will attempt to explain life's origin at all, let alone with things like directed panspermia and piggybacking on crystals?
I just did. They're not saying evolution is responsible for those things.
If the true argument is against all things not scientifically disprovable than why not just say that and not attempt to answer the question at all? Of course the answer to that is basically, we all want to know.
Of course! The problem is that the questions you are seeking to answer are outside of the bounds of science. When it was decided (I'd be curious as to who actually made the decision) what fit the description of science, it was decided that science would not incorperate all aspects of human life. It is a field in which one of the limits set on it is what things are theoretically disprovable.
So then how does one begin the process of approaching something outside our known scientific arsenal using only scientifically bound questions? Your point about physical universe is then valid. So why are we addressing the question of the origin of life at all if we really have no scientific ability to do so, and if thats true, why is it bad to allow all questions on the subject matter? I find piggybacking crystals and "seeding" just as preposterous as pink unicorns defecating life into existence.
It's not bad to allow all questions. The question of ID is an important one to consider and should be mentioned when considering the origin of life, but it should be noted that it is not a scientific answer. My high school biology teacher mentioned ID, she stated that it was a perfectly fine way to look at the universe, but that it's not a scientific theory for the reasons above. I thought that was good.
Also, if you had infinite knowledge you would know if there was in fact intelligence within the system.
An Intelligent Designer is not necessarily limited by the bounds of the physical universe. Even if we had infinite knowledge of our physical universe we would still be unable to disprove the concept of a deity existing beyond it who controlled its development.
So then any explanation of the origin of life is unscientific and not a theory. So then whats this argument about?
Not true. Let's say I have a scientific theory about how rocks and crystals can propogate life. I could run an experiment to test it. It would not be easy and would be generations long, which is why no one has done so yet. However, because I
could do that it remains a scientific theory, albeit one with no evidence that you would be well within your rights to discard as hocus pocus. That's what I do in these situations.
I'm guess from your readings that you are less upset that ID is not considered a scientific theory, as you seem to understand that it's not, but more that the scientific theories we have as to the origin of life have little if any evidence and yet are often expounded as fact. I share this irritation.
... 
