"Abiogenesis" means the advent of life from non-life by purely naturalistic means. It involves anything from Darwin's 'warm little pond' to Hoyle's panspermia. It is the denial of the creation of life by a Creator, and specifically by the Creator God of the Bible. Theistic evolutionists in particular claim that abiogenesis is not required for evolution to be true -- that God could have started the whole thing, front-loaded it to progress evolutionarily, and then let it go as programmed. While I doubt anyone would deny that God could do anything He wanted to do, this idea of God starting everything and then letting it run 'according to plan' not only disagrees with what God has told us in the Bible, but it also disagrees with the primary foundation of evolution: that all things have natural and material causes where life (at least) is concerned. As a result, while theistic evolutionists are used by the evolutionary side, they are also quietly ridiculed by many. Creationists also know that the compromise the theistic evolutionists make is just that: a compromise. Neither hot nor cold, neither one side nor the other. When evolution states that all life processes must be the results of natural and material causes, it cannot leave out the beginning of life. Understanding this, there have been repeated (and repeatedly unsuccessful) attempts to create life in labs and test tubes around the world. The fact that abiogenesis would be the 'capstone' of the evolutionary idea, could it be proved, has not escaped these people. What these evolutionists are missing altogether is that life is not simply a chemical reaction, or series of chemical reactions. If it were, then any recently dead organism could be easily brought back to life! Rather, life is a function which is imposed on chemicals, and not intrinsically a part of what they can do by themselves. This is primary to an understanding of life itself. It is 'from the outside' and is, itself, not something material. The theistic evolutionist thus will 'allow' God into the starting gate of the race, but pulls Him out of the running as soon as the race begins. This is not something that agrees with either the Bible or with God's character -- the character of someone who loved the world so much He gave His Son for us. His Word, the Bible, shows that He has been intimately concerned with and involved with the world since its inception. The theistic evolutionist not only cannot afford to accept God's Word as true as presented in Genesis, he or she also cannot accept the idea that everything began by purely natural and material means! And so they try to 'rule' God. They rule Him in for the start and then rule Him out for the rest. Why? Why not go with one side or the other? What is the logic with trying to combine oil and water in a permanent and stable mix? Abiogenesis is the LOGICAL and NECESSARY beginning for true biological evolution. Accepting Genesis' explanation of a supernatural and God ordained creation ex nihilo is the LOGICAL and NECESSARY beginning for someone who claims to worship and believe in this God. The data regarding abiogenesis points repeatedly to the impossibility of it. The data indicates the Bible is presenting things accurately. So why the attempt to separate abiogenesis from evolution? It is the result of a deep desire to be part of the world and accept worldly wisdom and the world's changing points of view while at the same time claim salvation by Christ. It is denying Christ's words but wanting His power concerning the Resurrection nevertheless. Just how much Christ is willing for this to occur is something that is between Him and the individual. I make no judgment on the salvation of any person. However the simple fact is that abiogenesis is required by a true acceptance of evolution. From what the data say, the one is no more improbable (or just as improbable) as the other anyway! Attempting to separate abiogenesis from biologic evolution is to create a false dichotomy, and to force a split where a split is not possible.