What fallacy is being committed here?

I agree that they're confused on the claim (evolution is not accepted because it's possible but because the evidence supports it).

Wouldn't this count as a strawman though, as Dr Bo points out?

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

Just want to make sure I understand the Strawman argument.  

There's substantial scientific evidence for evolution but not for abiogenesis; so attacking abiogenesis is used as a Strawman to avoid having to address the evidence for evolution.

I assume that's what Dr. Bo meant; if that's the Strawman argument, it makes sense and I would agree.

Ed, I submit respectfully that you're using the phrase "scientific method" as a bit of a magic wand.  @Bo, have you defined the scientific method anywhere on your website, or have you linked to a page elsewhere that defines it, so that people answering or commenting can link to it? 

The Scientific Method basically consists of developing a hypothesis about some phenomenon in the real world, and then determining (with experiments or mathematics) whether that hypothesis can be falsified.  If it can be falsified, then the hypothesis will need to be tweaked or replaced with a new hypothesis altogether.  For example, the steady state theory (the stars stay in place) was believed to be true from the beginning of time until about a century ago when observations of the stars showed that the universe was expanding--which led to the Big Bang theory.   Since then the Big Bang theory has been reformulated numerous times due to advances in observations and theoretical formulations.  One article that discusses the Scientific Method is here: https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html.    

Obviously there are innumerable discussions about it and different theories about good Scientific Method. 

exactly zero examples of things that happened supernaturally

@Bo, I see that you continue to discount the historical record. Presumably you would happily put historians out of a job!

There is no supernatural event in the historical record." Scientists today can't even demonstrate the supernatural, let alone people from 2000 years ago who claim magic for virtually everything, in an age before scientific understand of the natural world and laws. What we have is people who claim magic because they don't have any other explanation ( argument from ignorance ), or in the case of religions, people who apply "faith". No, it is not in the "historical record" that "God resurrected Jesus" just like it is not in the "historical record" that Muhammad flew away on a winged horse. These are declarations of faith, not examples of the supernatural.

Luke's record is an historical record. Rigorous skepticism is open to ideas and it's able to investigate. It can ponder Luke's description of Jesus' visit to Jerusalem when he was 12 years old, when others were amazed at his understanding. It can think about what it meant for Jesus to give his body, as per Luke's description of things said during the last supper that Jesus ate with his followers. It can consider Luke's record of Jesus' death on a Roman cross, and resurrection from a rock hewn tomb.

I remember reading a book from Leconte de Nuey (spelling?) about the mathematical improbability of even just a protein getting formed by random chance in the universe.  I can't remember the details, it's been decades since I read it, but I think it wouldn't account for the non-homogeneity of the earth, or universe... If you have some reaction that requires water, all the rock in the world is irrelevant, while if you need some other element, perhaps in rock is where you'd find it plentifully, and by chance you need both, the intersection between the two you might find it quite likely to react (lets say to create an amino acid), and if amino acids are plentiful, then proteins become much more likely