= new reply since forum marked as read
But to be charitable, maybe it's just good-natured hyperbole.
Science works against faith.
Faith in God is different than faith that the sun will rise. For shame! 
--imm
The main problem is simulating the exact conditions that existed on earth at the time, which are unknown. The Miller–Urey experiment showed that it is plausible for life to form under what was thought to be primitive earth conditions at the time.
More recently this article:
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
IOW, life is an emergent behavior of matter in a fluid energy bath.
I generally restrict the word faith for phenomena that cannot be observed.
--imm
Plausible explanations are different from supernatural events. And scientist don't "prove" things.
There are other differences between Miller and nature. How nice of you to ignore them. 
--imm
There is profuse evidence that amino acids, complex compounds, (the so-called "building blocks of life,"
occur in many natural situations. For instance, they're found in meteors. From outer space. Also, 'emergent behaviors' can be observed, in humans, in animals, and in artificially created 'cellular automatons' as per the work of John Conway. Basic math. So far all facts, right?
Then there's the second law of thermodynamics. I assure you, that does not result from my feeling! It's the reason rocks roll downhill, (and superseded the previous explanation, that God wants it.) So far, good solid science, right? Also, to be fair to Miller, his experiment ran for several hours, in a bottle. The planet itself, had millions of cubic miles of ocean, (electrolyte) ample access to minerals, energy from a nearby star, and a billion years to play in. Facts. (Does guided experiment mean faked? What does it mean? Can you be specific? Would you call the universe guided? By?)
It can also be observed that the universe has a tendency toward entropy. That's what Jeremy England's papers show. (Nice how you can reject them without reading.) That's also math and accepted by peers. Where it's speculative, nevertheless plausible, is that since life accelerates entropy, then life, where possible, will be generated by emergent actions. Again this last part is hypothetical, but not contradicted by any observed phenomena. I do not profess more than a basic understanding of this physics. But I'll contrast that with your total lack of understanding. Also information theory, complexity theory, and chaos theory, all provide frameworks which converge around the plausibility of gratuitous generation of life. That's all evidence. It converges.
OK, where's your evidence? (Look at the sky! Look at the trees! ?)
--imm
You keep telling yourself that.
See?
--imm
Is there a limit to knowledge?
--imm
I presume you are saying then, that there is no limit on scientific knowledge. 
--imm
