No, I did not say the above nor anything close to it. What I said is quite simple: real science has not only not been able to produce life, it has also disproven that life comes from inert matter and in addition has shown that it is almost impossible for life to have ever arisen from inert matter. Now if you are smarter than Pasteur, the Noble Prize winners who discovered DNA and the many others who have advanced biology from the dark ages in the time of Darwin to where it is now, then it is up to you to prove them wrong and give evidence for your theory. Because you cannot, because you do not even have a hypothesis as to how life might have arisen from non-living matter, you indulge in silly rhetorical arguments.
Kindly provide me with a reference to this proof.
I have just such an hypothesis, which is one among many, and I have given pointers to it, and others, on more than one occasion in discussions with you, including here. Are you off your meds, or just too lazy to breath for yourself? I'll repeat what I said before in greater detail, as it seems to have set you off on a tizzy of verbal diarrea from whence you are unable to get back to responding to the point cogently:
Just because science hasn't demonstrated natural abiogenesis, as currently conceived, doesn't demonstrate that any other particular explanation for genesis is true. No one has demonstrated that there can only be a binary choice between the Christian God and Abiogenesis. If you think such a demonstration exists, you are welcome to point it out.