My point is that if scientifically ALL possibilities must be looked at.
EOM: I agree we should allow ourselves to look at all possibilities, including God.
I think the problem is there are three great unknowns in this equation. First, we don't have a very firm idea what early life could be. So we have a rough idea that the early life (according to abiogenesis) should be the simplest system of molecules that was able to store information (that is, really just a complicated molecule that could be build in different ways), copy itself and it had to have something going on chemically (a metabolism). The issue is for all of these things the current ideas for how life originated involves that existing non-living system might have taken care of some of these functions making the delineation between life and environment very fuzzy. For instance according to many ideas, volcanoes (of different sorts!) took care of the metabolism. Now we don't know at all what is possible in an earth-sized chemical environment, and that is our first problem: each decade bring new ideas for how early life might have looked and interacted with the surroundings so we clearly need to do a lot more exploring.
The second unknown is we don't know terrible much about the early earth. So we know it had biochemistry, and we know it had amino acids and lipids, but the problem is small biological chemicals with a life-span (even in good conditions!) of about a hundred years won't leave much of a trace if you leave them on a rock for 4 billion years; in fact, the rock is likely to have either been eroded away in the mean time or buried very deep. This is very important because the acidity of the environment, the concentration of biological substances and which biological substances was available are very important.
The third unknown is what the earliest life on earth actually looked like. The earliest traces we have of life is identified, as far as i know, only by looking at concentration of an isotope of carbon at what is believed to be remains of life. The issue is that looking at this isotope wont tell us anything about the biochemical makeup of this life, and we should not believe it was the earliest.
The problem is these three unknowns makes it impossible to conclude one way or another. It could be in a hundred years geology will have advanced to a degree that we know what the early earth was like chemically, and using huge simulations we have probed what is chemically feasible in this environment. if it turns out there seem to be a very firm limit to how advanced the chemistry could have become by then, then this would be evidence against abiogenesis and for God, but right now we simply don't know that much about the early earth or what is chemically feasible.
It is a bit like looking at the pyramids and thinking: Man could not have build these! It must have been the aliens.
There is in principle no problem with this conclusion, however it requires 3 elements: First, it requires knowledge of the society in ancient Egypt, i.e. what technology and resources they had available. Then it requires knowledge of what is feasible with this technology in terms of heaping stones on top of each other, and thirdly it requires archaeological knowledge, that is, you dig through the sand around the pyramids and look for evidence of (or against) quarries, worker barracks, etc. Without knowledge of these things the conclusion aliens must have done it is not warranted.
I would recommend the wikipedia article on abiogenesis to get an idea of the complexity of the chemistry involved and how primitive early living systems are thought to have been. I might also recommend "life ascending" by nick lane, however I thought it was a very hard book to read.
