Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

Keyword "appears" apparently you assume the way you look at it is flawless, if not why do you  call these things facts?

Either dinosaurs are found in Cambrian rocks or they aren't. They aren't. I tire of playing games. Like I said, no meaningful discussion can be had if you aren't willing to acknowledge reality. Different groups/assemblages of organisms occur at different points in the fossil record in a vertical/stacking succession or order. This sequence or succession occurs in a predictable order. 

For example, there is the Francevillian biota

Above that is the Ediacaran biota

Above that is the Cambrian biota

Above that is the Ordovician biota

Above that is the Silurian biota

And then Devonian, and so on up to Triassic rocks and then the Jurassic marine biota 

And so on and so on

Different groups/assemblages of organisms occur at different stratigraphic levels. The sequence/order is predictable and always the same (we don't find dinosaurs in Cambrian rocks).

This sequence/order is an observational fact. It was known and first described in the late 1700s to early 1800s *before* Darwin's theory of evolution by William Smith who mapped out and described the various layers in the fossil record and found that each level of the fossil record contained unique assemblages of organisms that occurred in a predictable order/sequence.

*This sequence is not a "story." It's an observational fact and description of what we physically see. It has been observed and confirmed for hundreds of years. Anyone can go out in the world and see it for themselves. 

*If you can't acknowledge reality, then you're not interested in objective truth. If you're unwilling to acknowledge the reality of what everyone else sees (including YECs), then no meaningful conversation can be had. You're obviously unwilling, so it's pointless to continue.

Well, again I'm interested in objective truth, your facts are pretty much subjective, as it looks to you. The facts that really are objective don't require opinions that appear to me they just are.

tbwp, is there much point in persisting with someone who's capable of posting statements like this...

"...your facts are pretty much subjective"?

Listen, you can look at rocks, you can look at fossils and you can say whatever you want about them, but at the end of the day it is still just a rock, fossil, and a level of earth you find things in. The only objective truth is there are fossils and rocks, and where we find the fossils, from that you believe you are showing me why evolution is a real thing from a common ancestor. The facts I've been talking about don't require anything but what we see today, in the here and now, language doesn't require explanation it is here and now and we all use it, and coding is along that vein, it isn't just material that makes up life it is the arrangement of the material, it isn't the material that causes instructions to be there, it is the arrangement of the material, even there we don't see life as a result of a material arrangement, there is something more to life that we cannot even define. So you may believe in millions of years, don't care, a fact doesn't require an explanation to be objective those that can be looked at by different people and have different opinions about are not facts.

No point at all. The irony is he's the one who keeps bringing up evolution and "millions of years, don't care," when as you've seen I've said nothing about it, and just physically described the fossil record (sometimes I think he's having a conversation with himself the way he keeps repeating things like a broken record and not listening to what other people say). And like you said, when someone calls objective truth "pretty much subjective," there's no point. When someone denies what everyone else in the world plainly sees and what even young earth creationists see. Heck, even @Kjav recognizes there is a sequential order of occurrence in the fossil record (he believes that sequence of fossils is due to a global flood, but he is still sane and honest enough to recognize reality and the objective fact of faunal succession). It's amazing how some people lie to themselves ("The only objective truth is there are fossils, and rocks, and where we find the fossils"---says he, while denying where we find the fossils). It's amazing how some people can delude themselves into believing they're seeing "objective truth" when they're in la-la land (or maybe it's just simply denial).

And on the subject of where such a tremendous amount of loose material came from that makes up the several-kilometre-thick sedimentary deposits we see around the globe today, if I recall didn't T_M suggest it was just 'lying around' on the surface prior to the Flood?

That's only marginally less absurd than his proposition of 'subjective facts'.

You have to wonder what educational journey a person has followed to be so ignorant of simple knowledge about the planet on which they live, not to mention basic logic and reasoning.

In the present case I don't think it's ignorance or a problem with basic logic and reasoning, but simply denial.... which to be honest seems to be a common affliction of the human species to varying degrees. 

No argument from me about that

You tell me what you see is objectively true, you see fossils so the shapes of them, and where they were found are facts, you tell me this shows evolution is true, because of the time represented due to these things, but not so much. I am saying you telling me there is a sequential order, because of where they were, and what they are is a story you are telling me, you are applying to the fossils and strata, if you want to tell me those are factual statements according to the things you believe about them, I'd go along with that, but telling me those are facts, you are blowing smoke.

@TruthMuse AND I KEEP TELLING YOU I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION OR THE AGE OF THE FOSSILS!!!!!!!!!!!

@stephen_33 you're right, completely pointless.  I mean how many times now have I repeated myself??? It's like he's having a conversation with someone else, with some imaginary person

Tbwp, how can you say in your opening statement that the existence of life does not contradict the laws of physics and yet acknowledge that nature cannot explain the origin of life?

That's a really great question. Because origin and existence are two different things. For example, self-replicating RNAs don't exist in nature but they can exist in principle (we know this because chemists have been able to engineer and design them in labs). But just because they can exist doesn't mean they can spontaneously originate on their own. Make sense?

   But the existence of life is obviously tied to the origin. So the fact of its existence is proof of it having an origin. That is the case with absolutely everything and it must be.

   By the same logic there absolutely has to be one thing that has no origin. It can logically be no other way.

   It is utter foolishness to seek a naturalistic cause for the origin of life because it only kicks the can another step down the road to the origin of nature.

   You can never kick the can far enough down the road as to make the can actually disappear.

True, the existence of life is proof that life has an origin, but that doesn't prove it had a naturalistic origin. Let me try a different analogy. A computer can exist. There is nothing about the existence of a computer that defies, contradicts, or goes against the laws of physics (that's what I mean when I say the existence of life does not contradict the laws of physics). But just because the existence of a computer does not defy, contradict, or go against the laws of physics (the way, say, walking on water would 😉), that doesn't mean a computer can spontaneously originate by the laws of physics. 

I know that life doesn't have a naturalistic origin, Hebrews 11:3 makes that very clear.

   My point was that the search for a naturalistic origin to life is a fool's errand. It isn't even logically plausible or even conceivable. 
   We are always trying to make more efficient and powerful gasoline combustion engines, and they do keep on getting better. But we will never create a gasoline combustion engine that will produce a billion watts from a teaspoon of gasoline because there simply isn't that much energy available in that fuel to be released by combustion.

   My point is we can talk about this and that and what ifs about almost any subject, but sometimes there is a simple and irrefutable fact that makes it all a moot point.

   In this arena it is that something cannot be it's own creator, and therefore there has to be a supernatural cause of the universe's existence and all therein (including life).

I was addressing your initial question 

("Tbwp, how can you say in your opening statement that the existence of life does not contradict the laws of physics and yet acknowledge that nature cannot explain the origin of life?")

You are raising a new point, which is fine, we can talk about that, but I wanted to first make sure I answered your opening question (which hopefully I have). I will get back to you about the new points you raise as soon as I get the chance. Best.

Regarding, the search for a naturalistic origin of life, I don't think we can say that's a "fool's errand." There have been many things in history that people were just so sure was the result of supernatural forces, but that we have since discovered are natural occurrences (this is the infamous "God of the gaps" problem). So, I actually want scientists to continue to search for a naturalistic origin of life to either further confirm what seems to be true from a scientific point of view (that abiogenesis doesn't seem possible), or to demonstrate otherwise (the scientific research is also just interesting, fascinating work). If what you say is true that it's all moot, then additional research would only further confirm and reinforce your claim, so you can't go wrong.

(*Note: I am only referring to the origin of life. The origin of the universe would be a third topic to discuss that is separate from the origin of life, although the same point applies: it cant hurt to keep researching these things)

Once upon a time I think many people thought that about our solar system? But if you're stating that as a proposition, doesn't it give you a problem too?

If life emerged as the result of some 'non-natural agency' (I think we all know what you're alluding to) then what caused that agency to exist in the first place since it couldn't have created itself?