The origin of life on Earth is a toughie in its own way. We may identify some number of scenarios by which it may have happened. We may create life from non-life in the laboratory. Even if we do, creationists will only cite the demonstration as proof that life is designed. At any rate it won't prove that the original abiogenesis event happened along the same lines.
Both of these questions are separate from whether life on Earth now is the result of common descent diversifying via variation and natural selection. This one already has a huge preponderance of evidence for it, none against, and must be taught in biology classes if biology is to be properly understood.
This and a few other authors, geologists and biochemists, have said that it's more than a little "coincidental" that life seemed to develop the second the Earth had cooled sufficiently to allow it to exist.
I don't believe in coincidences.
We've always been told that it would take billions of years for life to evolve...Okay, but why did it arise so quickly, the minute Earth was cool enough? Suspicious!!
I'm old enough to recall that we were told we'd never know what killed the dynosaurs. We'd never know what an atom looked like. We pretty much know both, now.
I've learned to be suspicious--but not hostile towards--our esteemed scientists. They don't have all the answers, but they're trying, which is good.
What I've found, however, is that they don't always present all the evidence on the table for public discussion when they should.
Oh, and creationists would not be able to say that was proof that life was designed.
If science can't explain abiogenesis--hey, man, it's THEIR theory, not ours (Christians)--shouldn't we hold them accountable? (Some lady earlier suggested they be spanked. That's ridiculous. Accountability is for them to acknowledge in public discussion that, NO, there has been no progress, none, in this area to date.)
Nice discussion, all.