You are not getting close
That is incorrect. Progress has been made at every level from the spontaneous formation of the monomers of large biomolecules to the formation of protocells encasing RNA in lipid bilayers. A great chain is being assembled that, when complete, will connect us from simple molecules like water and methane to living cells capable of biological evolution. Many links are still missing, but new t new ones are found continually.
There is no reason to believe that man cannot create life de novo.
Do you recommend that the abiogeneisis researchers quit their work and go find other jobs? I've asked the question before, and the creationists decline to address it.
It was tried several years ago and it failed--Miller, Urey.
That experiment was not an attempt to create life, and it was a success.
Not only that, God did it ex nihilo.
That is logically impossible. One cannot affect something that doesn't exist. All one can do is to rearrange what already exists. If the universe came into being, it did so using some prior substance that already existed - a substance capable of generating universes from a piece of itself. And there is no logical necessity for that substance to be conscious.
While gods may exist - we cannot rule out the possibility - they are only one possible source of our universe, meaning that the idea is not needed. It's also not the best candidate hypothesis, it is unnecessarily complicated since it requires a conscious agent, which, in the hands of the Abrahamists, has been given a multitude of other qualities also not necessary to serve as a source for our universe such as omnipotence and omniscience. The multiverse hypothesis requires none of that.
Proposing a god solves no problems. It's a vestige of a time when we couldn't conceive of any alternate hypothesis. It was alone on the list of candidate hypothesis.
Since then, others have been added that, like the god hypothesis, can neither be ruled in or out. If you've done that, then you've done so without justification.
