I don't know how many times I have to repeat that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, yet the strawman of "how did life start" always creeps up in every evolution debate... Abiogenesis is a very new and exciting field of study though. That's why I was quite thrilled to find this article:

First Life and Next Life
Synthetic biology is a new field, but it's targeting an old question: How did life begin?

(I am sorry, but this article requires you to pay to read it. If you have the means I still highly suggest you read it, but it's not central to understanding the argument.)

After reading that article, I just gotta say that is so frikkin' cool! Of course, as Carl Sagan once said, every scientific endeavour has some moral ambiguity to it. I can see this having some serious ramifications if we aren't diligent in the controls and methodology of all this.

As I said, the discussion on abiogenesis generally starts out in a discussion of evolution, and sometimes I just can't understand the rigid denial of actual concrete evidence, combined with horribly flawed logic that some of these deniers employ (not to mention the out and out lies). You can point to the mountain of evidence for evolution all you want. It's just that the creationists and IDiots will proclaim, "Hah! It's not a mountain, it's half an inch under being a mountain. Nice try. Now, see, my mountain is tall enough to be a mountain."
"But, that's just a tent. Look at the gauze-like fabric and the plastic structure holding it up. You have a tent, and a flimsy one at that."
"At least it's as tall as mountain."

Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the way the conversation always turns out.

 

 

I'd like to expand on this discussion some more. Just because we can't say with certainty exactly how something started, or exactly what the process involved really was, it's foolish to just accept magic or something supernatural as an explanation, when there are numerous perfectly natural explanations that are available. Given the choice between magic and something natural, one should take the natural approach since it in no way violates any laws of physics, chemistry, or any other field of science we are familiar with.

The same could be said for the beginning of the universe. Numerous possibilities have been posited that not only explain how it all started, but also these theories in no way violate the conservation of mass or energy. Again, there is no need for magic or anything supernatural.

And keep in mind, "I don't know." is a perfectly acceptable and honest answer! Generally much more honest and acceptable than just making stuff up.