I have yet to see you produce any evidence at all for abiogenesis. In fact no one on this thread has.
If you cared about the evidence, you'd have had it long ago. It's just a Google search away. I've learned long ago to not spend time trying to teach a person what he has a stake in not believing. It turns out, "show me the evidence" is an effort to make oneself look as if he evaluates evidence, or that the critical thinker lacks it if he can keep saying, "where's your evidence, where's your evidence" as you are doing now.
I have a nice list of links on abiogenesis organized by subtopics, which I've recopied dozens of times in these threads, with nary a creationist willing to look at it or comment on it, so I don't do that any more: inorganic matter to amino acids, amino acids to proteins, nucleotides to nucleic acids, RNA to primitive ribosomes, and lipids to cell membranes.
If you want to protest that your intentions have been mischaracterized here and your interest is sincere, then make the fist step. Find an article addressing evidence for abiogenesis from an academic source (creationist websites will not give one a scientific education), review it, and bring it back here to summarize what you learned and any questions you may have. Jack Szostek is a prominent molecular biologist who has made a couple of videos on the topic available on YouTube. We can start with that if you're interest is sincere. It will require an investment of time and attention.
As I said I don't care about evolution if you can't show why life exists. I have no interest in point A to B. It doesn't matter.
Are you expecting others to believe that you would suddenly take an interest in evolution if the abiogenesis pathway were worked out? You don't care about evolution or abiogenesis except to undermine them and substitute creationism.
Also, this is another one of those attempt to imply that there is reason behind your position - that if you only had abiogenesis data, that evolutionary data would become relevant to you.
I wish you could see the face you present in these discussions rather than the one you think project. You would stop ,making these arguments to people who know the science. You have zero chance of accomplishing anything except showing the folly of faith-based belief, and how it affects the ability to understand reality. The critical thinker thinks, there but for the grace of critical thinking go I, not, what a liberating way of evaluating reality that must be, and how can I follow in those footsteps.
Producing some of the compounds used in life like RNA and polypeptides, is not leading to life
But it is. So is showing how the monomers organized into long chain polymers. You will never learn this material if you assume before looking at it that it is impossible. That should be a conclusion based in a review of evidence, which you haven't done, not a faith-based premise made before looking at the evidence. Why do you think that an uninformed opinion can persuade others that have learned the material and disagree with you? Why would they defer to the judgment of somebody who steadfastly resists learning about that which he has rejected out of hand?
