" So when the question of abiognesis is solved and the naturalistic link between geochemistry and biochemistry is established will you accept that god is a pointless concept? "
WOW! I can't belive you said that?! You are assuming that if the question of abiogenesis is solved ( yes, I know what that is ) that it will confirm your bias. If Metatron asked ," So when the Government gives full disclosure on Aliens will you accept that the human race being alone in the Universe is a pointless concept, and that aliens are real?", you would rip him a new one... You should have just wrote this...
" So when the question of abiognesis is solved in the manner that I already believe it will be, and the naturalistic link between geochemistry and biochemistry is established like I already believe it will be, will you accept that god is a pointless concept, because I already have based on my already determined beliefs." That's not science. That's assumption.
The question about abiogenesis may be solved. What will it prove? We don't know. You can't use an assumption to prove your view is correct. If I assume there is a creator, does it prove it? No. If you assume there is no creator does it prove it? No.
Believers say, " We are here, that is proof of God's existence." Non-believers will say, " We are here, that is proof that we evolved without a creator." Both statements are innacurate. You are correct when you say that the study of evolution does not require an intervening God. You could be born, never see a Bible, or hear the word God, or the concept of God and still be a scientist studying evolution. When you die, you will not have disproved the existence of God. Just say it. " I cannot disprove the existence of GOD. I really, really want to though, I just can't!!" You will feel so much better.
We are getting off topic. According to the definition of evolution that I read, evolution is a fact.