According to Creationists, what are the strongest arguments against abiogenesis?

From [Abiogenesis - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) : > In biology, abiogenesis (from a-‘not’ + Greek bios ‘life’ + genesis 'origin') or **the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds**. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. Many proposals have been made for different stages of the process. The mainstream scientific understanding of abiogenesis postulates that life emerged naturally from non-living matter through chemical reactions that took place on a primitive Earth (or on another planet -- see [panspermia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Panspermia)) . Of course, this runs contrary to theistic views that place God as the designer and creator of life (e.g. see Genesis 1). According to Creationists, what are the strongest arguments against the feasibility of abiogenesis? Are there compelling reasons to reject the hypothesis that life could have emerged naturally from non-living matter without the purposeful intervention of an intelligent designer? ___ Relevant Biology Stack Exchange discussions: - [How hard would it be to create a protein "by chance"?](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/85890) - [Experiments on abiogenesis in laboratories](https://biology.stackexchange.com/q/55225)