That's how science works. It is always still working on its arguments. It is always assailable. But saying that abiogenesis is indefensible is as silly as saying that evolution is indefensible. It was once, until the evidence was collected. Give us a chance to collect the evidence before you proclaim things impossible.
The Giant's Causeway was once considered proof that Man was not alone on the planet, and that giants roamed the Earth as well.
That has nothing to do with whether arguments "reveal evidence". They don't.
Arguments do not reveal evidence.
It's possible that the inability or refusal to use language that make's sense, a well known symptom of dishonesty and bad faith, is also simply a matter of stupidity.
It's too bad the story of the Emperor's New Clothes didn't make it into the Bible, where the vulnerable would take it seriously.
If God is not controlled by the laws of physics, but in fact controls them, then I think that pretty much cancels out trying to draw any conclusions about God (ie, "demonstrate His existence", as per your no. 1) on the authority of science that has physics at its core.
Specifically, that is how science delivers its "product".
Or gravity is indefensible?
Or alternatively, wait until you have gathered the evidence. If you do it prematurely, you assign it to a category it does not belong and bastardize the scientific process.
Yes, evidence has to have a basis in logic or fact. That doesn't mean that logic can produce evidence. Logic produces invalid conclusions, even false conclusions, if the premises are not based on fact. Ya gotta have real facts to have real evidence.
People who are colour blind can still see colours in other ways - e.g. with a spectrometer. We can all see "invisible" colours like infrared and ultraviolet with a spectrometer. Real evidence can be confirmed by different methods, so that everybody can see it.
No. It's like if we discover that such an animal exists, only then can we learn anything about it's structure, behaviour, etc.
That's great! But many humans (evil and good) have recovered from debilitating conditions. We now know how this can happen, through our immune systems and our ability to heal our own bodies. So it's great that your dad got better - but it's not really evidence that God exists.
?? Animals exhibit real love, and animals exhibit an ability to tell good from evil. (And animals express both.) This ability increases and decreases depending on sophistication of the neural network they have, and on the socialization provided by their environment and genome (i.e. dogs have a different sense of good and evil than cats because they are pack animals.)
And yet many miracles (the parting of the Red Sea, coming back from the dead, red tides, eclipses) turn out to have very prosaic explanations.