Abiogenesis is not the foundation of biological evolution.
The foundation of the observation that evolution is real comes from a comparison of existing life forms and Charles Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution, it predates him hy more than two thousand years, in fact it predates Christianity.
The mere observation that most terrestrial animals have four limbs is just the first step on that track. No matter whether bat or bird, human or lizard, the same basic pattern repeats over and over. If you move over to the world of plants, the same things are seen time after time. You can make further observations right down to the molecular level and you see the same thing time after time. There are databases stuffed with terabytes of this information, even patent offices have vast amounts of this.
And again you bring forward the same old tired, false argument. You can only talk about the improbability of some event before it happens. Shuffle a pack of cards very well, now lay then all out on a table, face up. The probability of them appearing in the order you found is 1 in 52! which is "mathematically impossible" but you cannot deny it happened.
Does it ever occur to you that a god might have created life and let it go at at that? Wound up the clock, so to speak, and let it run?
Abiogenesis is not the foundation of biological evolution. How many times does that have to be said on these pages? Don't tell me, I already know. It has to be said after every time some creationist fraud asserts that it is. It is the main characteristic of creationists that they lie, lie and lie again. This is where the criticism comes from. After some years as a visitor to these pages, I have never seen a creationist assertion that I didn't already know was a lie or could not easily find out.
Evolution might not be the whole truth, but creationism has no truth.
EDIT
"1.There is very objective evidence of Design that contradicts the current theory(or hypothesis) of abiogenesis.
And what precisely is this evidence? Bacterial flagellae as claimed by Prof. Behe at Dover, Pa in 2005? Further, the hypothesis of abiogenesis (which I repeat is not closely related to biological evolution) is not about the appearance of complete cells as we know them with large numbers of genes, proteins, lipid coatings, enzymes etc. It is about the formation by chemical and / or physical processes of self-replicating molecules. Like all creationists, you claim there is evidence, but you almost never provide it or give any link or bibliography.
.
2. They are questioning how Natural Selection and Mutation could result in the mass increases of complexity without intelligent direction "
This has been observed in nature. Go read the FACTS about genes being replicated in plants, which may be found on the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance site. See, that's a reference to a site with real information.
" 3. Other alternatives should be considered, like whether a higher intelligence evolved elsewhere on another planet that allows for self organization of highly complex molecular machines "
Why? Speculation about life elsewhere may be entertaining but it is only that. Why not sort out what might have happened here before bothering with other planets with totally or almost totally unknown environments?
"4. Is there an unknown mechanism much more intelligent than we are, as yet undiscovered by science, which could create life."
Now explain the origin of this intelligence, saying it was "always there" is not an answer.
"But if there is valid evidence of Design then why can't science just admit the "appearance of design or evidence of design"
I repeat, where is this evidence? The Discovery Institute claimed it existed and they got shot down almost 7 years ago. By Christians, as it happened.
You are not beating a dead horse, you are thumping a greasy spot on the ground where the horse used to be.