They have had no success at all and that is why you fianl qualifying statement after all your babble is "they have not formed a complete hypothesis of abiogenesis yet, much less a theory".<quoted text>
No, what you propose is nonsense. Science is repeatable. If an observation or experiment is not repeatable it is not of much value, just as a single point on a graph cannot be used to make a line, surface, or solid. That is why your example of bird like fossils is not enough to convince evolutionists. Even the study of abiogenesis is being done with repeatable science. That is why even though they have had some success they have not formed a complete hypothesis of abiogenesis yet, much less a theory.
All you can do is to either find an article that you misunderstand and try to misapply or find a very fringy statement, or even worse get claims for garbage sites like tourist magazines and try to pass them off as science.
All it takes to fend off your various attacks is a mere wave of the hands. If you had something of note you would get a more substantial reply. It seems that you are willing to be a typical hypocritical lying creationist. I am just here to remind people of that fact.
Regardless if you can simply separate your abiogensis from the debate by the wave of a hand then so can I not have my theories on an abiogenesis of a larger scale than you propose complexity arranged itself by whatever.
If your TOE was a science it would be repeatable and not give a new flavour of the month at every turn that better supports creation.
What's repeatable? Algorithmic magic based on mising common ancestors and mostly single bones.
How come creos could make a prediction on junk dna and TOE could not? Answer, TOE is not a science.
Did TOE predict a deteriorating genome and diminishing returns around epistasis or was that another surprise you've had to scratch around and find excuses for? Well the fall at least explains it. It also demonstrates life may not be as old as evos suggest.
Does TOE really care what evolved from what, where, when, why or how as long as it all evolved?One lot of research supports another until the lot of falsified.
Did TOE predict life arising as plant life and then animal life in the sea,(rather than a pond)? Genesis did.
Your big reply is that TOE is repeatable. That is babble. Prove it. Where is your evidence eeing as you like to quack about it so much.
I'd say that I can and have supported my view to at least the level of credibility you have on offer, including the 6 points of creationist support I offer. I don't even have to rely on creationist work, that is the fun thing. There are many well scientifically credentialed that also suggest evolutionary support is lacking.
What you call my finge statements are backed and supported and have never been refuted by anything more than the scientific value of your post above. You evos squark for support and then when it is provided you bury your heads in the sand because you cannot refute it. Hubris from you and not a link to be seen oh lazy one.
You are a face saver and evader that is gobsmacked into resorting to ridicule in place of science.