We do not know if life started in a 'puddle', in a deep sea vent, inside a mica crystal, or in some other environment. In that, you are correct. But we *do* know that chemicals naturally polymerize and become more complex in such environments and in the way that is necessary for life to develop.<quoted text>
and you despite your dubious claims, have no evidence that life sprang forth from a puddle on it's on.
So here we are.
And, once again, we *know* that life is a chemical process. We know that none of the chemicals involved in life are themselves alive. We know that the basic components of the chemicals in life are common in the universe and would have been common on the early earth.
Now, what exactly is your alternative explanation? That a supernatural being, for which we have no evidence, breathed a breath of life, for which we have no evidence, into a bit of mud and humans came out of this alive and fully formed? Exactly what is the process involved in this transformation? What physical properties existed at each stage? How did the chemistry of life get started in your version of events?
For that matter, how can you suggest an 'explanation' that is based on the existence of a supernatural realm for which we have no evidence, whose properties are unknown and untestable, which has a being that we cannot fathom, with motives that cannot be understood by us, and that can overturn any law of physics at a whim? How is that an explanation at all? If anything, it is the complete avoidance of an explanation: it has no testability, it has no solid predictions of the properties of life, it is based on no known properties of the being proposed, etc. As an explanation, it it totally worthless (except to calm the fears of a two year old).
So yes, to say that life, which is chemically based, and which is made from basic chemicals that are common, could have arose from natural chemical processes is a FAR more justifiable explanation than what you propose.