You can claim all you like but you have not backed it up in any way. I have asked for an example of a hypothesis which fits the scientifically known facts about living things showing how abiogenesis might be possible and have received no such example (in fact there is a million+ dollar prize for anyone who does just that). This is the slimest kind of scientific proof possible, which does not require any evidence, and materialists cannot even provide that. I think that that makes my statement that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible quite legitimate. Further, your statement below admits to as much:
What gibberish. A contest prize is NOT an example of science in action. Quite obviously contrary to your representation here, I have offered you an hypothesis reaching all the way back to lipid-world, that does not require the leap from amino acid junk, and quite obviously, despite your repeated simple-minded attempts to imply it, an instantaneous leap from amino acid junk is NOT a requirement of the hypothesis I've offered up.
I am not required to win a contest prize, or even qualify as an entrant, in order for this the be an hypothesis. An hypothesis, I might add, that stands on exactly the same evidence as the amino acid junk hypothesis, and with the same scientific standing, which is to say, not much.
Yup, I guess no scientists want to make an easy million bucks by writing up a hypothesis for abiogenesis. Tell me another joke.