Intuitively speaking, abiogenesis seems to be statistically improbable, even impossible. Don't you "feel" so?

"Intuitively"? "Seems to be"? "Statistically"? "Feel" (already in scarequotes)? That doesn't sound very confident, or scientific. And to what statistics would you be referring? Or are you just imagining them?

Science methodically, relentlessly investigates reality and gradually reveals its secrets. Feeling threatened, the believer impatiently demands ALL secrets, pointing and shouting "Aha!" at every subject that isn't completely explored. But with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer places for God to hide. More mysteries are cracked, more gaps in understanding filled.

We are studying life itself now, and are now playing with its building blocks. We can construct artificial DNA, molecule by molecule, then watch it replicate and grow. But we haven't yet been able to demonstrate that elusive transition from inanimate matter to life. Perhaps we don't have all the necessary elements, or we haven't figured out the specific sequence of events. Or maybe life is not something that happened in an instant, but only gradually developed, partially in pieces, then fully only when those bits of sub-life finally come together. In any case, we are certainly bound to learn the real secret because science won't give up.

The believer will argue that we aren't considering all the possibilities. Perhaps the beginning of life was not a natural process. A few centuries ago, supernatural intervention was a daily occurrence, but with each scientific advance, God has less and less to do. If we want to pretend to argue statistics, the likelihood of life arising from a magical spell by an inexplicable superghost is far less than from a natural process. But it might take just a few more years until the bets can be paid off.

IVF uses two living cells - a sperm and an egg - to create another living cell. Abiogenesis creates a living cell from non-living material.

To say abiogenesis is improbable is fine. The fact that scientists have been working on the problem for about 50 years and have not yet had true success would prove it is improbable. However, it is wrong to say it's impossible until we have studied every possible permutation of inputs and failed to create life.

You say "intuitively speaking abiogenesis seems to be statistically improbable...". I strongly disagree with that statement. The idea that simple life was created from some, as yet, unknown natural process is far more intuitive to me than the idea that life was magicked into existence.

EDIT

@CalleyD: There are three very possible scenarios you fail to consider:

1. The first is that abiogenesis is, in fact, still happening. One likely possibility is hot water vents deep on the ocean floor. We've only begun to understand these environments and it's impossible to know that new life isn't being created regularly.

2. Abiogenesis requires a very specific set of inputs and environmental conditions which do not currently exist on earth.

3. Life was actually created elsewhere in the universe and delivered to Earth on a comet or some other body. This may seem far fetched, but scientists have identified critical organic compounds on some comets.

monstrous information and massive and huge capacity is different than omnipotence. i think of the theists lose us while they choose for the "all, none, constantly and not" kinds of powers. Is the pope infallible? in basic terms by potential of definition. he's a human, makes errors, good? So if the errors isn't a mistake, as a results of fact he's the pope, then what value does the notice mistake hold? it fairly is actual a different meaning that it may be if not for the actual incontrovertible fact that the pope is infallible. So, i think of you could end that given the actual fact we've in not understanding each and every thing approximately something in any respect, its darn close to logically impossible to be all understanding, all-powerful, or regardless of alternative superb powers have been assigned to God. Plus, isn't it quite sparkling how the belief of a God became into conceived in our realm, over a volume of time, and why it grew to advance into what it grew to advance into, and for what applications? seems very handy for the applications of people who could seek for to regulate or a minimum of impact the habit of others, for the two sturdy and undesirable applications. Is there greater advantageous than all of us understand for particular? seems particularly sparkling greater is going on than we've defined so a ways with in basic terms our present day technology. Does it shop on with that hence there's a God? in basic terms interior the minds of the believers......

I'm not sure intuitive and statistical really belong in the same sentence that way, its either one or the other, not really both.

For me it's entire possible, and statistically far more likely than a supernatural super being doing it. They've already proved that RNA, the precursor to DNA, can be made spontaneously using the elements that were around in the early earth.

What do feelings have to do with statistics?

You are mashing concepts together in a contradictory way. You can say it is statistically improbable, and that can be debated. You can say it is counter-intuitive, and that can be discussed. You can not say something feels statistically improbable.

So? Feelings don't make something true or untrue. And, just FYI, the conditions needed for abiogenesis are no longer here. The earth has advanced a few million years since then.

It's just an impressive sounding word that makes people enamored with their perceived intellect, excited. In the end you are exactly right, it answers no questions as to life's inception. Further, this was clearly refuted during the Miller-Urey experiments of the 50's.

Yup, just like I intuitively feel the sun revolves around the earth and my wife would never never betray me. I'm sure you can figure how much value intuition has.

If scientists tested hypotheses by "feeling", we'd be in the Dark Ages. Luckily, "feelings" aren't taken seriously in science.

So what is your point Mrs Einstein? I guess you have

some Religion and Spirituality reason for this brainwave.

(darned if I can see it)