Perhaps your starting assumptions are wrong. You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth. Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe.
Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe. Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory itâ€™s not the theory that changes?
Certainly the fact that abiogenesis has taken place on one planet suggests that life should be found on Earthlike planets of other solar systems if we were able to go and look for it.
But we aren't able to go and look for it.
In the same way, tectonic plate theory tells me that if we dug a tunnel to the earth's core, it would be very hot. But the fact that no-one has made this observation is not evidence against the tectonic plate theory, but a consequence of our inability to sink a mineshaft several thousand miles deep.
Was that too hard to understand? I can hardly see how anything could be simpler.
I didnâ€™t claim that, but to date there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Are you saying that even though there is no evidence to support your belief, that there is life elsewhere in the universe? For lack of a better word are you saying you have â€œfaithâ€ in aliens?
Tazmanian Devil did not say that there was life elewhere in the universe or that he believed in aliens.
His point, and mine, and everyone else's, was that you can't pretend that absence of evidence for life elsewhere is the same thing as evidence of absence of life elsewhere, because we haven't looked elsewhere.
Evidence of absence would, as you point out, suggest a remarkable and peculiar origin of Earthly life. But you don't have any such evidence.
Look at it this way. Suppose I stood your argument on its head, and said: "If abiogenesis is natural, we should expect lots of other solar systems to have life. No-one has ever produced any evidence of a solar system without life. This confirms my ideas about abiogenesis."
Youâ€™ll have to forgive me for going off topic, but another example of the evidence not changing the theory is transitional forms.
Perhaps I should explain that when new evidence supports the prevalent theory, it is not necessary to alter the theory.
In this particular case, of extraterrestrial life, there hasn't been any new evidence. This makes it a totally different case from (for example) the multitude of supporting evidence which has come from the fossil record (incidentally, I notice that someone has been telling you a lot of silly lies on this subject); and this is different again from the imaginary evidence contradicting evolution which you guys have been praying for for the last 150 years.