Quite right. Would you like another example? Australopithecines (such as 'Lucy') were apes. Humans are descended from australopithecines. Therefore humans are apes. We have not evolved into animals that are not apes. QED.
Immediately, from the collapse of the dense core of an interstellar molecular cloud to produce an O or early B-type star with a mass of more than 8 solar masses. Ultimately, from the H+He mixture produced by the expansion of the universe from an initial ultra-high-temperature ultra-high-density state.
So far as the evidence goes, your first sentence may be correct, provided that you are saying that God supplied the energy for the Big Bang, not that he created the galaxies and the stars (including the Sun) in their present condition. Of course, this is a faith position, with no evidence to support it.
Your second sentence is certainly false; there is abundant evidence of how animals and plants have evolved since the Cambrian period.
Science cannot prove that there is no God; it deals with natural phenomena, not with the supernatural. However, my experience has been different from yours. It took four years of careful study of the Bible to convince me that Christianity is false. Obviously I could not spend the same time on the other religions of the world (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, the religions of ancient Greece and Rome, etc.), but once I had concluded that Christianity was false I reasoned that I was likely to come to the same conclusion about other religions. I did try to read the Bhagavad Gita, but it meant nothing to me. I suppose that an educated Hindu who tried to read the Bible would find it equally meaningless.
However, your belief in your God and my conviction that there are no gods is a matter of your word against mine; there is no way of showing whether either of us is right. If all you claim is that your God exists, I have no quarrel with you. It is when you start claiming, on the basis of your religious faith, that the results of scientific research are false that we are likely to quarrel.
No. The first human (Homo habilis?) was born as a baby and was nourished and cared for by its parents and by other members of its community. That was how it survived to adulthood.
I can't explain how the universe began; if I, or anybody else, could explain it, it would be in complex mathematical formulae and you would not be able to understand it. You could try reading The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.
However, you are making the false inference that if scientists don't know everything, they don't know anything. Although scientists don't know how the universe or life began, other findings of science do not depend on their knowing about these beginnings. There is compelling evidence that the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago; that hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed during the first few minutes of the expansion of the universe, and that the first galaxies and stars were formed within a few hundred million years after the 'Big Bang'. None of these conclusions depend on our knowing the source of the energy required to form the universe.
The same is true of the evidence that the Sun was formed about 4567 million years ago by the collapse of the dense core of an interstellar molecular cloud, that the Earth is about 30 million years younger than the Sun and was formed in a protoplanetary disc surrounding the Sun, and that the Moon was formed by a collision between the Earth and a smaller planet about 50-70 million years after the formation of the Earth, not four days after.
I know nothing about abiogenesis. However, I think that it is something of a red herring. If life is as scarce in the universe as it appears to be, it seems very unlikely that the universe was designed as a home for life. In any case, there is compelling evidence that simple forms of terrestrial life existed at least 3500 million years and that they have evolved into more complex life-forms since then. None of this depends on our knowing how the first life originated from systems of organic compounds.
If all you want is a correlation, then knowledge of origins are not needed. But all rational models, which are more advanced, do benefit and even need origins. The current model for evolution, assumes there is no sense of direction to evolution, therefore it is hard to predict. While the current universe model assumes there is no center of the universe, even though the BB model, conceptually, implies a point of origin; an original center. These empirical models both assume a confusing gap of dice and cards. Logic and evolution have a sense of direction; 2nd law has to increase. The 2nd law over time is not random but net increases.
Entropy is also a state variable meaning any state of matter has a constant amount of entropy. Species represent entropic states, with the gap between species, imply these states are quantified; jumps and not continuous. Distinct species cannot breed with other distinct species. Evolution has to follow a narrower species path.
Putting aside the data and theory content of both Evolution and Creation, the fundamental science approach of Creation; done by a creator, assumes logic. It assumes an omniscience God had a plan; brooding, and then a blue print; rational model (divine plan). It is more like applied science or the God, the architect, getting the plan ready, leaving little to chance. It is evolution that assumes dice and cards or the older approach of the whims of the gods, instead of a logical plan. The universe and life happened on a random whim, which is a primitive science approach, stuck at empirical.
I would be more impressed if evolution was more rational, with future things more easily inferred and deduced even before finding fossils. That would be more advanced, but it will also require more knowledge of origin; abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis, to me, is similar to the original state of evolution, that I call chemical evolution. Chemical evolution, by natural selection, would eventually lead to self replicators, which become the origin of the evolutionary theory. If a form of early chemical evolution was the case, did that chemical evolution stage stop, when the replicators appeared? Or does this nanoscale version of evolution; chemical, still run parallel to the macro changes, inferred from fossils and Evolution, proper? My guess is it still runs parallel; origins. Natural selection at the nanoscale follows natural selection at the macro-scale and vice versa. Dice and card is more of a way to average these unknown but logical chemical processes, behind continued chemical evolution, But an average does not give all the needed details for a rational model.
The most logical chemical behind natural chemical selection at the nanoscale of life, is water. Water forms hydrogen bonds, with each water molecule able to form up to four hydrogen bonds, with other water. This is very stabilizing to water and give it water high boiling point for such a small molecule.
The fluidity of life processes is based on secondary bonding forces, that can break and reform, with the hydrogen bonding the strongest secondary bonding force used by life. DNA, RNA and protein all inherited this from water. Water is given off when they polymerize. With water the dormant hydrogen bonding material, both in shear number of molecules; 100 times as many water molecules as all the rest, combined, and water has to largest total number of aqueous hydrogen bonds, it is the most logical source for natural selection at the nanoscale; big dog of secondary bonding, running the show.
Water is optimized to itself, since it can form up to four hydrogen bonds with other water molecules. While all organics in water, will raise the surface tension in the water to some extent; breaks one of more hydrogen bonds between water. This is why even soluble organics in water, like alcohol; ethyl alcohol, will alter the natural surface tension of the body's water; increase, and this can cause equilibrium changes, not always for the best; brain, skin, liver, kidneys, blood vessels, etc. Stopping can reverse this; lowers global surface tension.
When any organic is placed in water, the water will feel the deficit, and try to minimize the surface tension, which then forces these organics to accommodate. Proteins are packed and folded, by water, to minimize their surface tension in water. Water is like a bunch of army ants that can, as a team, man handle larger objects like protein. The final shape is bioactive. The protein will not just assume that state, if water was not present or if you add another solvent. If water folded a new style protein, and there is residual surface tension, there is a lingering surface potential for change, until that ship is rightened.
The lowering of surface tension of organics in water also places protein, for example, into lower entropy states. There is more complexity or freedom, all stretched out wiggling. The lowering of surface tension comes first; enthalpy and entropy loss. The containment, to lower surface tension, creates an entropic potential; a target for the 2nd law. This helps the nanoscale odd makers by loading the dice in a specific game. Reactions on enzymes is a way to satisfy the 2nd law.
Water, 3-D hydrogen bonding liquid continuum, organic surface tension, lowering organic entropy, entropic potential; selective change. Water is near and far for both global and selective local changes. While evolution of cells; organic structure, alter the global water set point.
