Merriam-Webster calls abiogenesis: the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called alsospontaneous generation;
RationalWiki defines abiogenesis: …the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules.
Finally, Wikipedia seems the most balanced by defining abiogenesis this way: is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
Seems Dictionary.com is seriously in the wrong.
Besides, how can you “discredit” a theory? Either there is evidence for it or not. My understanding is that scientists have yet to find hard proof of abiogenesis, but it is the most logical explanation for how life became, well, life. Certainly more logical than “God created it!”
I’m going to be the fly in the ointment and say that replacing one dogma with another is a mistake. The universe is filled with shades of gray that we need to interpret. A single cell is life, but should that single cell of life have as much value as a newborn baby in a crib? Or a full-grown adult? Saying “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” just fights one weak argument with another weak argument.
It’s not even that hard to make a strong argument!
We need to stop having these pithy, black & white arguments filled with absolute declarations, when it’s fairly obvious that the universe is a bit more subtle than most of us want to admit.