Sorry but wrong unless you believe in animism or an élan vitale.
Your comment on this and abiogenesis is very common, but the irony is that it is creationism in a different guise.
Chemicals are chemicals, no difference between dead and alive except defining characteristics, the main one being the ability to replicate.
I stand by everything I said — but, not necessarily things which you chose to read into what I said.
Abiogenesis is perfectly compatible with (part of, but not all of) creationism. Creationism covers both the creation of life; and the origin of species. Abiogenesis covers the creation of live itself — but, says nothing about the diversity of lifeforms. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution covers the diversification of lifeforms — but, says nothing about the origin of life itself. That was deliberate — partly because Darwin knew he had no ‘scientific’ explanation for the origin of life; and partly because Darwin was, himself, a religious man. I left all of that out before, in the interest of brevity. There’s ‘irony’ here — it’s just not where you think it is.