Origin of Life Paradoxes

The 2018 International Conference on the Origin of Life identified five paradoxes that must be resolved "before any solution to the origin problem can emerge": (1) Asphalt Paradox. (2) Water Paradox. (3) Information-Need Paradox. (4) Single Biopolymer Paradox. (5) Probability Paradox.

"Even if we solve the asphalt paradox, the water paradox, the information need paradox, and the single biopolymer paradox, we must still mitigate or set aside chemical theory that makes destruction, not biology, the natural outcome of our already magical chemical system."

Yes, it's a major conundrum but that doesn't mean we're yet at the point when we can say with a high degree of confidence and therefore authority, that the question of OOL cannot be answered with a conventional, naturalistic explanation.

Correct, we don't state conclusions as a negative (or as a metaphysical statement), but would instead phrase it this way:

We do not have empirical demonstration/confirmation of abiogenesis, and, thus, cannot state that abiogenesis is an established scientific fact. 

The way you phrase it obscures this fact and makes it sound like we shouldn't abandon abiogenesis when it has never been confirmed to begin with. So you can still assume that abiogenesis is somehow true if you'd like,  and believe we should continue testing it as a working hypothesis, as long as we recognize that abiogenesis is still only that: 

A working hypothesis that is assumed to be true, but that science has yet to demonstrate is true.

As I can only repeat ad-nauseum, my position on the subject of OOL is that of researchers as a body because I must defer to their expert and vastly superior knowledge.

That being the case, if such researchers refer to abiogenesis then I feel free to as well. I can only parrot their views on the subject.

* I probably use the term abiogenesis in a generic sense at times, meaning only OOL regardless of the cause.

And as I keep saying ad nauseum you are free to do that as long as we recognize that you're making an assumption and understand that:

Abiogenesis remains empirically unconfirmed and thus we cannot state that it is an established scientific fact 

I suppose if people take the view that no other remotely credible cause for life exists, then it's not unreasonable to believe that the cause must ultimately be a naturalistic one, however difficult the problems that need solving.

This is starting to resemble the how many angels can be fitted on the head of a pin debate of the Middle Ages but adapted to metaphysical naturalism.

Well, I think that's actually the danger and what actually tends to happen. People assume something is true for so long that they forget it's still an unproven assumption and then over time convince themselves it must be reasonable and credible; forgetting that it has yet to be demonstrated to be credible.

I think what seems reasonable is what I stated in the first paragraph of the OP about the excellent historical track record of naturalism at explaining things and so it would seem reasonable to expect the same to happen here with the origin of life. And I think that is a valid point. To me, that actually seems like one of the strongest points.

However, we must still be careful to distinguish that type of argument from actual empirical demonstration, and keep in mind that past results are still never a guarantee of future results. 

I think it's also important to keep in mind that this isn't a 'god-of-the-gaps' type situation of not knowing. To the contrary, we know a tremendous amount. Things like the Tar/Asphalt Paradox are grounded in "an enormous amount of empirical data" that "suggest that it is impossible for *any* non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the 'living'."

Thus, like top origin of life scientists say (in this case RNA-World chemist Steven Benner), abiogenesis would seem to be impossible (even though Benner still personally believes it to be true). But as you're well aware, scientists never like to speak in terms of 'impossible' but statistical probability (hence, Benner's "suggest" that it is impossible).

Either way, it's the "enormous amount of empirical data" that is the problem, because it would take much more than that to overturn this conclusion. The fact that organics invariably degrade and decompose over time is so well known and well supported not just by science, but everyone's experience and observations of once living things and food organics decomposing (not to mention an entire fossil record backing up the tar/asphalt paradox that organic devolve into petroleum, oil, coal, etc. type compounds over time), it's hard to imagine this ever being overturned.

To me, the bigger problem I see is someone seemingly finding a 'solution' and pathway for abiogenesis and forgetting about this problem. And that seems to happen too. Researchers believing so strongly it just has to be true, so forcing a solution that doesn't really work, like finding an improbable pathway to make a protein or RNA and announcing success, and forgetting that empirically we know that even if we do overcome the odds to make a protein or RNA, everything we know tells us it would quickly degrade and decompose back into its component parts.

This is the problem and danger in science when there is no competing hypothesis. It's too easy to assume and lower the standards of 'proof.' Science always works so much better when we have multiple competing hypotheses.