We can (as of now) rule out abiogenesis because it cannot produce a single answer to how life was created. Science has shown that there are not probable, naturalistic means to achieve any aspect of life.
For example,
There are no known or plausible pathways to produce all 20 proteinaceous aminos required.
Even if that were resolved
There are no known or plausible pathways to produce the concentrations and purity of aminos necessary for protein synthesis.
Even if that were resolved
There are no known or plausible pathways to produce homochirality of aminos required for protein synthesis.
Even if that were resolved
There are no known mechanisms for proteins to self assemble from aminos. It has never happened and by known mechanisms of protein synthesis, it could never happen in the full expanse of our universe.
Even if that were resolved
Relevant RNA has never formed de novo in early earth circumstances.
Even if that were resolved
RNA is extremely fragile, lasting hours. There is no likelihood of RNA being able to persist, reproduce, amplify and adapt/evolve.
RNA has never auto catalytically produced anything resembling a functional protein.
Even if that were resolved
The miracle of protein synthesis would have to occur thousands and thousands of times in precise order and result to create one living cell.
The simplest, self sufficient organism, Pelagibacter ubique, has a 1,308 unique proteins (approx. 100,000 total proteins). Each of these proteins perform a specific function to maintain life and they all work in conjunction to do so.
Even if that were resolved
There is no viable source for the complex information in RNA/DNA
Even if that were resolved
RNA requires a protective membrane. Lipid bilayers are not capable of encasing life as they would suffocate any potential budding life. None provide managed ingress or egress of energy, water, nutrients, waste, etc.
Even if that were resolved......and on and on and on.
Each of these steps are required, most depend on each other, and none have been answered. It is safe, fair, and accurate to say abiogenesis is not a viable hypothesis.
Then what? Seems like life is wildly specific and engineering and requires a string of absurdly specific circumstances that can comfortably be declared impossible if not directed by outside forces that have design, purpose and intent.
Thoughts?