You have blind faith in spades with divine creationism. The scientific position requires no faith to hold as I will show you.
How things appear is not sufficient ground to declare a process impossible. That is the incredulity fallacy, which I've already laid out for you, Remember this written to you: "I can't imagine how it could have happened, therefore it didn't, and therefore there must be a god that made it happen."
The reason to believe that naturalistic abiogenesis occurred is that life exists, and that that life must either have been created by an intelligent designer, or assembled itself natuarlistically and without an intelligent input. Can we agree on that? If not, please suggest whatever third possibility you think might be the case.
Assuming that you have offered no third possibility, we have just the two. One must be correct, even though both seem unlikely. One requires that a god somehow can and does exist undesigned and uncreated, the other that chemicals given the proper conditions and sufficient time can order themselves into living cells. It would be a logical error to look at only one of these two possibilities, deem it unlikely, and then dismiss it as having been ruled out without noticing that what you are left with is something that is also unlikely. If you applied your argument uniformly, you would have to rule out both possibilities each for seeming unlikely, which cannot be the case if we agree that one of them must be true given the presence of life.
If we can't use unlikelihood to rule either of our choices out, we can use it to order them. Which is less likely, naturalistic abiogenesis, or some form of intelligent design to account for the first life in the universe (I am calling the possibility that some extraterrestrial race arose naturalistically and came to earth to create life here naturalistic abiogenesis even if life were designed intelligently on earth subsequently, or came to earth via panspermia just so long as the first life arose naturalistically rather than with the help of an agent that transcends our universe and was not created by it.)
Because of this claim that it seems unlikely that life could exist undesigned and uncreated, I have asked others before, and I ask you now, to name the thing that is least likely to exist undesigned and uncreated. Is it life? Not to me. It is a god. What the theist who brings the argument that life seems too complex to have arisen naturalistically and blindly is doing is trying to rectify that problem by positing something even less likely to exist without an intelligent designer, a god, to explain how life came to be. It's also a flawed argument, a form of special pleading,. The argument says that something as complicated as a cell must have been intelligently designed, but that something orders of magnitude more complex such as a god just is - no explanations needed.
That is the quality of the argument that the theist makes here, one I reject. My list of candidate hypotheses for the source of the first life on earth contains only two elements, abiogenesis and divine creation, and I put the former at the top of that list for reasons just given - it is much more likely than a god. Probability arguments in support of divine creationism such as Hoyle's Fallacy and your argument are all flawed in the same way.
So how about a rebuttal? Do you find any flaw in this argument? What part of it is invalid to you?
The evidence for naturalistic abiogenesis grows every year. We can conceive of the process as a chain connecting atoms and simple molecules to living replicators, a chain still missing many links. The links we do have that take us from simpler substances to amino acids and from amino acids to proteins are incomplete evidence that such a process once occurred as part of a process that took us to the first life.Others have shown you much of this evidence, and I have a large collection of links that I could add to what has already been offered. So far, you've elected to ignore it all, repeating your claim that there is no evidence for abiogenesis despite the evidence provided to you to the contrary.
Creationists are continually telling us that the science - evolution or abiogenesis - is in crisis. The community of scientists still plodding on researching the problem and the financial sources backing their work don't seem to have gotten the message.
But you haven't done that and likely cannot do that. Your argument to date is that abiogenesis seems very unlikely to you, which seems to be your basis for ruling out its possibility and substituting an even less likely alternative hypohesis, and that abiogeneis has no evidentiary support notwithstanding the dramatic progress made to date.
Our universe doesn't appear to need a god for anything. God-of-the-gaps arguments are an attempt to find some job for a god to do, in this case, create the first life in our universe. Abiogenesis is a threat to that position, as it would fill in yet another gap.
As time goes on, it is becoming clearer that we can possibly account for all of discernible reality without resorting to gods. Look how far we've come without gods in our science.
This is simply incorrect as has already been demonstrated to you. New links are being added to the chain of chemical evolution from elements and simple compounds to living replicators yearly
