Of course not, we're talking about a hypothesis, one of several, about how life may have originated on Earth.
JohnnyBoy: "The last big push on the subject was in the 70s.
Since they just multiple theories with no actual results and everyone told that it’s true without the slightest bit of evidence."
In fact, work has continued to this day, as the references and bibliography in the link from my posts #100 and #129 demonstrate.
But nobody claims to have created life in a test-tube, merely to better understand some processes which could.
JohnnyBoy: "However, no further progress in creating life has been achieved in the lab and it’s in the lab that Abiogenesis should be proven."
To my knowledge there was never any "progress in creating life", ever, period.
So you've been doing a ferocious battle, full of sturm & drang, against a straw man.
Why?
JohnnyBoy: " 'Well we know Abiogenesis is true and here’s how it might have worked,' I have to conclude other than Abiogenesis isn’t science, rather it’s dogma."
Abiogenesis is a weakly confirmed hypothesis, nothing more.
So why do you lie about it?
>Abiogenesis is a weakly confirmed hypothesis, nothing more.
There’s actual evidence to support It? Where? Let me check, nope still no evidence life coming from non-life. Lots of speculation but speculation isn’t evidence.
>Of course not, we’re talking about a hypothesis, one of several, about how life may have originated on Earth.
Problem they’ve largerly stopped doing experiments to test hypothesis. Until the 70s they’d come with an idea on how it might work, rig up an experiment in creating life and test it. Null result every time but at least it was science.
Today they no longer bother with the scientific testing and stick to endless speculation, which isn’t science.
I provisionally agree.
The problem is you have no other alternative apart from Creationism.