You seem to be convinced that life comes from non life, and as you said before all that is left to find out is mere details. But I'm wondering what you think of noted Origin's scientist Stuart Kauffman (of "natural magic" fame who said: "Anyone who tell you that he or she knows how life started on the earth some 3.45 billion years ago is a fool or a knave." And the late evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis who said: "To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to that bacterium." And the late physicist Hubert Yockey who said "there is nothing in the physical-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences." He concludes that the process of origin is possible but unknowable. If Yockey is right and it is unknowable, is it science?

You consider the natural change from non life to life to be a given because of your obvious dislike for anything resembling a designer. OK, maybe a way will be found that it happened without design. But, any reading of current science on this, in my view, leads one to the conclusion that if it is possible we are farther from understanding it than we thought we were, a lot further. It's not about the details. It's about the impossibility or extreme unlikelihood of it happening that way.