How so? We ever witness life arising from life (Biogenesis). Abiogenesis (life arising from non-life) was debunked ages ago.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -- Dr. George Wald, Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard University, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
If life requires life in order to exist, mustn't we also conclude, then, that the creator Himself was also created? And His creator, too, ad infinitum? I'm assuming the creationists' reasoning is that God is eternal and therefore requires no creator. If we can accept this possibility, then, and this is my own (possibly naive) proposition: Why, too, can't life, in its most simple carbon-based form - along with the universe - likewise be eternal?
And I'm not discounting the Big Bang, either (which I believe is still the accepted theory by the physicist community), only suggesting an eternal Bang/Crunch cycle which may never be observable or fully understood by the human brain. Yet it still attempts to explain, logically, the origins of time, space, and life without inserting a 'throw in the towel' God Gap conclusion.
I'll fully admit I'm in over my head toying with ideas about the universe on a quantum level and/or the grandest scale of cosmic study, where the astrophysicists hypothesize; but I believe your assertions about abiogenesis (new to my vocabulary) have been reconsidered more recently, just not in language or mathematics I find accessible.
Lastly, your quote by Dr. Wald, although I'll grant he said it, flies in the face of how science and scientists work(s). They are obligated to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. If the facts suggested a creator, this is the direction they would undoubtedly pursue, as true discovery is what ultimately gets you published and secures grants. The fact that they haven't, and don't, leads me to believe your post contains discrepancies I'm unprepared to challenge.
More personally, if you are as convinced as your post suggests, have you selected a particular God or gods to whom we owe our existence? And if so, how did you arrive at your decision?
Thanks for being civil, btw.