Life is here. I assume even you accept at some point it wasn't. Therefore 'life had a begiining' is hardly an unproven hypothesis unless you're buying into some weird notion that we're all the figments of the imagination of the cookie monster.Not proven is probably the fairest way to describe the hypothesis that life arises spontaneously from chemicals.
Until there is a mechanism it remains an unproven hypothesis.
However you may wish to deny it arose spontaneously from chemicals - even tho that is what life and everything else on Earth is, chemicals. If so you need to propose an alternative. As we know early life was simple photosynthesising bacteria and as we know it then evolved to give the diversity of life and as we know pre life involved the generation of elements in stars and the formation of our solar system and Earth - chemical evolution either here or elsewhere in the universe is the most highly likely hypothesis. What is your alternative version? A version that is scientifically testable and clearly stated?
And to date there is no evidence that it is possible. In fact all attempts to find a mechanism have failed, so to be strictly accuarate it is the various theories about mechanisms that have been falsified.
How on Earth did you reach that conclusion? Please explain how each theory has been conclusively falsified. Cos as far as I can see even Miller Ureys experiment, tho from right, showed something was possible and generated further research. Even they did not falsify the notion that in certain conditions you get organic molecules. You need to go through all the literature and falsify each piece totally to say that with conviction.
And then there remain the avenues not yet tested or avenues that it is not yet possible to test or things we have not yet even thought of like inorganic chemistry routes. It is a complex multi step process that we are at the very start of trying to unravel. It is something we know happened, even you know life had a beginning, so it is not as if it is a pointless exercise like say looking for pixies. It happened by some means or other. That is the excitement of science, with pieces giving clues to where to next look or surprises or new findings opening up new possibilities. Your scientific curiorisity must be completely absent not to get excited by that!
Not really, DNA and indeed all science was at some point where we are now with abiogenesis! 200 years ago you could have made exactly the same duh lets give up statements about pre DNA attempts to look for a mechanism of passing traits to offspring. First you had to get Mendalian genetics and it was still a very long way from a plausible notion that it was DNA. There was a time when nobody would have even had a clue where to look - would not even have been aware of the cell. If they'd had your attitude they'd have said all attempts have failed so they've been falsified lets give up and just say God must wave a magic wand at each conception and magic a new person, cow, slug etc.The analogy with the structure of DNA is misleading. Yes, DNA and its structure was of course unknown until it was discovered. But it was discovered and a structure was determined.
The hypothesis that live arose spontaneously is just that, an unproven hypothesis, based on a naturalistic paradigm.
From that I can only assume you wish to shove God into that gap in knowledge and that is fair enough, please do. You keep refusing to state clearly that it is but everything you say about information etc and the fact it is difficult to know what other possible explanation there could be at this point if you've rejected chemical evolution. If that is the case what are you doing to research or prove the supernatural alternative? What are your hypothesis and predictions? Or is it just sit there and say Goddidit. From where I'm sitting your hypothesis is far weaker than anything in real science but there you go.
However I'd think very hard about what shoving God into that gap entails for God. Someone whose overall plan from big bang to evolved intelligent life over billions of years really messed up on the chemistry to life front and had to come down to put a patch on the whole show by waving his magic wand to create the first cell or DNA strand or whatever. And when that gap is closed, as it will be at some point, God is squeezed out of yet another area. Is that really your aim?
And be aware, that shoving god into that gap does not mean genesis is correct at all. It does not effect evolution at all. Nor pre life. And while you and your friends continue to suggest otherwise you're lying.