http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml
Darwin himself could not explain the appearance of life from nonliving matter and no one has come up with an answer as of yet. Even if we could get this event to happen we would need it to occur millions of times in different locations to ensure a rich enough source of DNA/RNA to continue the increase in complexity and counteract localized extinction events.
You are apparently young, so I will be as kind as I can.
You will never have confidence in your own beliefs until you adopt an epistimological methodology. You can simply adopt faith, which is believing what you are told by an accepted authority or believing what feels good, or you can adopt scientific methodology and at least test your beliefs against empirical evidence.
As a geologist in training, you apparently have some affinity for science. I suggest it as your epistimological paradigm.
Most creationists have been forced to accept "micro-evolution" because it has been so thoroughly demonstrated as fact. They resist "macro-evolution" because it has implications for creationism as described in The Bible.
All normal matter is made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. This includes the Pope, a turnip, and the gravel in your driveway.
Being alive then is not what we are made of, but an arrangement of those things or a process involving those things
We can show that chemicals combine in predictable ways based simply on their outer shell electrons. We can create the chemicals of life in a lab. We can demonstrate scientifically, evolution up to the point of viruses. On the other side of the inanimate/ animate divide is generally accepted "micro-evolution"--accepted even by ID and Creationist proponents.
The "holy grail objection" of Creationist/IDers is proof of the animation of inanimate matter. I believe we will be able to produce simple life in a laboratory soon based on the current state-of-the-art biological paractices. But even before that, as a rational, science-leaning, seeker of knowledge have you:
Ever wondered at the fact that the introduction of a chemical that interupts the process of a critical enzyme causes life to cease and the once living thing to become just a mass of chemicals which breaks down into component elements? In other words, we have known that the reverse of the process of life, death, is chemical or physical. Why shouldn't the process of life be the same?