“They’ve found amino acids and other organic molecules in interstellar dust and on comets.”
Yes.
“And I believe they’ve synthesized RNA in the lab, without the help of living cells.”
Yes, but the lab itself is designed and operated by human intelligence, so that doesn’t help your argument.
“And there are lots of people working on figuring out the next step, to replication.”
You’re skipping severals steps there. You’ve still got to find a way to get from amino acids to proteins, which we have only observed happening (in nature) within living cells. Then you would need to get from proteins to RNA, which we only observe happening in living cells. Then you would need to find a way for the RNA to replicate, which again, we have only ever witnessed happening in living cells. There’s a bunch of other steps after that, but you can’t get this far, so I think that is a sufficient demonstration.
If you want to claim that nothing modeled in a lab can ever teach us anything about phenomena outside the lab, that's up to you. I disagree, as would lots of researchers in different fields.
There’s a bunch of other steps after that, but you can’t get this far, so I think that is a sufficient demonstration.
Demonstration of what? That we don't have a good theory of all the steps in the origin of life? I've acknowledged that several times. All I've been saying is that I wouldn't bet against science eventually coming up with one.