The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven.

Argument from ignorance: "I've never seen it, therefore it's impossible." And you can go talk to some scientists about why you're wrong, anyway.

Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin.

Yes, actually, it is where we need to begin, because it's something we can confirm to be true. If you want to add onto that something else, then you need to provide evidence for that claim, not just poke holes in the existing science.

In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life.

Argument from ignorance again, but also, what makes you think that the conditions of earth today at all match the conditions on a prebiotic earth? Because I'll give you a free tip right now: they do not.

Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life.

This is probably quite an old hat question by now, but it's valid here: so what life created the creator of us that you're positing must exist?

Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.

And how is the admission that science doesn't know yet evidence for creation?

If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.

Then you need a hearing aid: as I've said before, lack of conclusive proof for abiogenesis is not evidence for creation. You're adding together negatives as if they'll somehow become positives. Meanwhile, all of the available evidence and data points to life arising through natural means, and none of it points to a creator. In fact, nobody has even managed to propose a test or hypothesis that could be used to demonstrate a creator, and so I find it incredibly interesting that you'll sit there and pontificate on science and why the rules of it disallow abiogenesis, yet you remain remarkably quiet on how those same rules would measure up around creationism.

If abiogenesis isn't scientific, apply your same logic to creation, and to what evidence there is for that, and see how that stacks up. Otherwise, you're just engaging in special pleading, demanding unique criteria for questions of natural generation of life, while requiring no criteria for the thing you already believe.