[furball4paws]

Current work on Abiogenesis is probably just at the hypothesis level, certainly not yet a theory. There is a lot of work, but a clear picture is not yet available.

Do you see Creation as Abiogenesis?

Panspermia is not a solution, since it just puts off the place of the beginning of life to another world and time.

As I see it, there are only two competing ideas, both Abiogenesis variants:

1. Creation by (a) God.
2. Chemical abiogenesis.

I'm open to other possibilities. I am hoping to see some real progress in chemical abiogenesis in my life time, but you never know.

[PatrickHenry]

1. Creation by (a) God. 2. Chemical abiogenesis. I'm open to other possibilities.

3. Creation by humans (or whatever) with a time machine, going back to start the whole thing going, possibly by dumping their garbage on a pristine earth. Crazy? Consider ... we have evidence of humans, and we have evidence of humans dumping garbage. All we need is a time machine.

[microgood]

Do you see Creation as Abiogenesis?

Interesting question. I guess the answer would depend on how it was done. If non-living matter was created first and then life was created from that, it would be abiogenesis. Otherwise, who knows?

Panspermia is not a solution, since it just puts off the place of the beginning of life to another world and time.

True, but it was interesting that Crick was one of the proponents of it, since he was a famous biologist somewhat involved in the discovery of DNA(from Wikipedia).

As I see it, there are only two competing ideas, both Abiogenesis variants:

1. Creation by (a) God.
2. Chemical abiogenesis.

Do they teach abiogenesis in high school or just evolution?