Christians, do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.?

Yes, I do.  Abiogenesis is the fantasy that life arose on its own from nonliving matter.

Atheistic evolution is the fantasy that life can pull itself up by its bootstraps.  In reality, every single imperfect system that is not maintained degrades and fails with time.  Life is no exception, so let's hear no special pleading for it.  Life could not have persisted for billions of years, much less increased in order and complexity, without God maintaining and improving it.

Yes, I thoroughly understand both these natural processes, and the difference between them. Most people, Christian and non-Christian, theist and atheist, don't.  You seem to be confusing Christians with fundamentalist Protestants, a much smaller category of people. The original and true Christian Church, the one Church founded by Jesus Christ, to which He promised the fullness God's truth, which includes well over half of all Christians, has no problem with biological evolution, or any other natural process.

Catholic biologist

1) Christians, do you understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.?

I do.

Naturally, I can't speak for all Christians. Only for myself.

2) Just curious. Every time I see Christians trying to argue against evolution they start talking about things that have nothing to do with evolution, so it leads me to believe that they think abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing.

You're talking about Young Earth Creationists, a minority Christian group that rejects the theory of evolution on religious grounds.

Yes, they often conflate evolution and abiogenesis. Also: they often conflate evolution and the big bang theory. This is probably something learned from their religious instructors, who use the technique as a "Straw Man" to make it easier to attack these scientific theories.

3) Despite evolution being undeniably true

It's not "undeniably true".

Note: I say that as someone who accepts the theory of evolution as the explanation for multiple Earth species that is most likely to be correct.

That is: I know of no better explanation than the theory of evolution.

BUT: the fact remains that it is deniable

and: it is even deniable on reasonable grounds

though I doubt any other explanation is equally well-supported by evidence.

That is: the evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution

but

definitely falls short of proving it.

It is clear most do not.

Yes, there's a difference while there is also a link to evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material. All forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experi-ments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in either a natural or an artificial environment. Now, while evolutionary theory can only begin once life has started (meaning abiogenesis is a separate matter), it is the evolutionists who constantly try to argue the case for how the first cells on Earth came to... life.

Yet conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions. In the mid-1800s men like Pasteur proved experimentally that living things can only come from other living things. That is, science eventually proved conclusively that the only supportable origin for any living cell is another living cell.

Modern ideas of abiogenesis can be very complex, and some are more outrageously unlikely than others. Guesses are widely varied, from deep-sea lava vents to meteoric impact sites and even radioactive beaches. In general, all modern theories of abiogenesis imagine some scenario in which natural conditions create, combine, and arrange molecules in such a way that they begin to self-replicate. These theories share at least one common factor: they are implausible to the point of impossibility, based on established science. Yes, very simple amino acids can be formed in laboratory conditions but these separate acids are nowhere near sufficient to create a living cell. The conditions which create these acids would not only kill any such cell as soon as it was formed, but are also unlikely to have ever actually existed at any time in earth’s history. Any evolutionary theory that seems to suggest how ultra-simple life could have developed from a single newly formed cell has no answer for how that cell could have been formed in the first place. There is no “prototype first cell.” Science has never even come close to producing a self-sustaining living cell that could have been produced by, or survived in, the conditions needed to form its components.

This means that a sense of desperation is gripping evolutionists so that they venturing outside the remit of evolutionary theory to claim support for living cells popping into existence without any help from God. That is why abiogenesis has become inextricably linked to evolutionary theory. Not due to Christians, but due to those who deny God is involved in life originating.

If evolutionists think that abiogenesis is wrong, why do they compare evolution to creation?

I do.  Do you understand the difference between literal and literalistic?  

Who do you think created evolution?

Your science?

Human science is a puff of dust, before the creation of the Lord, the One who has the name: CREATOR!

While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

. 

 I doubt many of the christians here even understand the concept of  abiogenesis