Theism is literally childish

[I_am_not_mafia]

Which means that we need to look at plausibility. How likely is it that an explanation is correct? How many questions does it satisfactorily answer compared to competing explanations? Does it rely on assumptions that we have no basis in making? Do we see the same process or phenomenon happen elsewhere for the same reasons? Can we test the hypothesis and reproduce the results?

Fine. When you can show me a single hypothesis on abiogenesis that meets these standards you'll have something. Unitl then, you're just saying that you personally find material explanations plausible, even if there's scant evidence to support them.

First I need to demonstrate that you are selective about the standards that you ask for depending on your existing beliefs. There are two explanations for thunderstorms. The first is the idea that it is caused by Thor, the god of thunder. The scientific explanation is that:

... the cloud becomes a thundercloud. Lots of small bits of ice bump into each other as they move around. All these collisions cause a build up of electrical charge.

Eventually, the whole cloud fills up with electrical charges. Lighter, positively charged particles form at the top of the cloud. Heavier, negatively charged particles sink to the bottom of the cloud.

When the positive and negative charges grow large enough, a giant spark - lightning - occurs between the two charges within the cloud.

Now unless you admit to special pleading then your world view holds that the two are equal. Your very same arguments against abiogenesis can also be used to argue that Thor is responsible for lightning and thunder.

You say that no experiments in a lab have ever resulted in abiogenesis, yet you can say the same about thunder. We just don't have labs big enough to create continent sized weather systems or access to a newly formed planet.

You claim that plausibility is a bullshit concept, so that must mean that it is just as plausible to you that Thor is as responsible for thunderstorms as the idea that it is a purely meteorological event.

But we understand both electricity and the process of self organisation to the extent that we use both for practical purposes, but using your argument this would be evidence for intelligent thunder. We can create arcs of static electricity that resemble lightning in a lab, but we can also create synthetic life in a lab.

Is Life Essentially Different from Inanimate Matter?
Special report: Where next for synthetic life?

Using your very same arguments I could say that the static electricity from a Van de Graaf generator is not the same as lightning. I could use your reasons for dismissing the Urey-Millar experiments by saying that the conditions in the lab do not match those of a thunder cloud. All the ways we use electricity in practice would, using your arguments, be evidence of a designer responsible for a thunder storm.

I could try restricting the debate to use non-scientific terms such as thunder claps in the same way you do use phrases like 'inanimate matter' and then complain about word games when someone tries to explain about sound waves and echoes.

And like you, if anyone tries to convince me that the scientific explanation is more plausible then I could accuse them of arguing from incredulity.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab, and have identified testable, falsifiable and reproducible mechanisms for abiogenesis and useful definitions of life. Theists on the other hand have no definitions, no hypotheses, have identified no mechanisms or processes, and have not yet recreated in lab conditions a god, a prayer that affects the outside world, telepathy or telekinesis.

Yet you still believe this but not that thunder is created by Thor or anything understood by science that challenges your the one fairy tale that you do believe in. This shows that you are not impartial about accepting evidence even if it meets certain standards.