Theism is literally childish

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Hardly. One of my arguments against abiogenesis is that we've never observed it. We have observed thunder and lightning.

And we have observed life. But we have never observed the small ice particles swarming around in a cloud causing a build-up of static electricity.

Another is that we don't have a solid mechanical explanation for abiogenesis. The existence of multiple competing hypotheses is proof of that. Yet, we do have a solid generally accepted explanation for thunder and lightning, as you've shown.

So until we have a single explanation then absolute every explanation is equally valid using your logic.

The Thor explanation must still be valid then using your argument because there are Many Things We Don't Know About Lightning

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.

I said that the world itself is a continual failing experiment for abiogenesis. The world itself is a continuing successful experiment regarding thunder.

Already explained.

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.

Yes, and whenever you note that intelligent designers can create things, you're in no way helping your case. It's amusing that you continue to do so.

The concept of Intelligent design has no explanatory power. How does it work? Again it's a christian belief that is not meant to be explained. A way of sweeping problems under the carpet.

I can take the process of evolution, simulate it on a computer and actually use it. It is quite easy for me to evolve something useful that will take me months to figure out. I can't get a computer to intelligently design it for me.

If you assert that intelligent design exists then you need to define how you propose it works.

What you don't understand is that if we have an accurate understanding of how the real world works then we can use that understanding for practical purposes. The modern world is testament to the effectiveness of the scientific method for investigating reality. Your god beliefs have no explanatory power and no practical purpose. I cannot take an understanding of the bible and make predictions based on it for example or use it to build something practical. The same goes for the flawed concept of intelligent design.

Scientists have created synthetic life created in the lab,

There you go again.

Links provided in the post that you are replying to but you deliberately snipped them out.