You seem to think that because this is an area of current research and in which major developments have yet to be made, you can just dismiss it as mere conjecture. I wonder why you are not making similar claims about cutting-edge research in physics and other areas?
Because this particular area is based on absolutely absurd assumptions. It is an attempt to make the absurd sound scientific. It is not dissimilar to the positive spin put on Clinton's criminal behavior.
Life does not arise from non-life. This is scientific fact. The contrary cannot be demonstrated nor can a semi-believable explanation of how it supposedly happened be developed.
Spontaneous generation, science tells us, is an old wives' tale. Yet this old wives' tale persists in the name of science.
The chances of life arising by itself are less than statistical zero science tells us. Yet it is believed because the only alternative is that God created and that is unacceptable. What kind of reasoning is that? It is nothing but denial of the probable and adhering to the impossible in order that certain implications be avoided.
That's not science, it's not logic, it's not honesty. It's cowardice, lies and willful ignorance. (Please note I am speaking of the theory of abiogenesis and not you personally.)
'Cause they ain't gorin' his personal ox.