Enough time? We took thousands of years to understand gravity, and we still don't think we fully understand it. Nothing in science is ever complete, because science recognises that it cannot say absolute things. The reason the theory is still alive despite 500 years of failed experiments is because none of those experiments ever produced a contradiction (i.e. showed that abiogenesis is impossible). If something isn't impossible (yet) then it is still possible. That possibility is what we are looking for.
All you'd have to do to end the search for abiogenesis is demonstrate that such an event would break the natural laws of the universe. No such demonstration has ever take place. As for the evidence, it exists to support much of the theory (i.e. getting amino acids forming in the Miller-Urey experiments) so no, a comparison to the lack of evidence for God is dishonest. We have ideas about how to modify the experiments to improve them, and we do so. We get closer and closer every time, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll find the answer.
As for not considering the possibility that God did it, of course we do. The problem is that such a possibility doesn't enhance understanding at all. You are answering a question with a supernatural explanation, which itself is filled with questions. The supernatural might not even exist, and there are no known methods for discovering the processes by which the supernatural could work even if it did exist (because by it's nature, it is "super" natural). Instead of relying on supernatural answers, science looks for natural ones, because we can explain natural ones. So far, given enough time, we've found answers to the problems we've put to science. Some we found quickly, some took decades or centuries, and some have yet to be fully answered. It doesn't mean science is anything less because of it. Science gets results.
All you'd have to do to end the search for abiogenesis is demonstrate that such an event would break the natural laws of the universe. No such demonstration has ever take place. As for the evidence, it exists to support much of the theory (i.e. getting amino acids forming in the Miller-Urey experiments) so no, a comparison to the lack of evidence for God is dishonest. We have ideas about how to modify the experiments to improve them, and we do so. We get closer and closer every time, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll find the answer.
As for not considering the possibility that God did it, of course we do. The problem is that such a possibility doesn't enhance understanding at all. You are answering a question with a supernatural explanation, which itself is filled with questions. The supernatural might not even exist, and there are no known methods for discovering the processes by which the supernatural could work even if it did exist (because by it's nature, it is "super" natural). Instead of relying on supernatural answers, science looks for natural ones, because we can explain natural ones. So far, given enough time, we've found answers to the problems we've put to science. Some we found quickly, some took decades or centuries, and some have yet to be fully answered. It doesn't mean science is anything less because of it. Science gets results.
