Matter. That is, matter, as opposed to organized matter. Given that interpretation, the author of the thread is consistent. And, I think that is how he interprets it.
"The reason I chose the Exodus passage is that I know many people have rationalized away Genesis, as you are trying to rationalize away this one too."
I don't have an agenda to tear down Exodus - I was just pointing out that there is an another interpretation. I don't claim to be right.
"Have evolutionists explained abiogenesis or the transformation of inorganic material into organic material?"
In terms of developing a law or principle that says elements A and B mix together via X process to produce Y life form - no. Hypotheses, based upon current assumptions of what the Earth's early environment was like, have been formulated to try to explain how synthesis of organic molecules and formation of ordered systems demonstrating homeostatic properties could have occured. The merit of these hypotheses has been reinforced by recreation in laboratories. Their weakness lies in whether we have accurately assumed what the Earth's early environment was like and determining if said reactions occured. No matter how plausible, possible, convenient, et cetera, if the reactions didn't occur, then it does nothing to shed light on how life began.
This is the problem with discussing things through intermediaries... oh well, tag team wrestling lives. How do I state this without sounding real insulting? Without getting into a discussion about Messrs J,E,D and P, it is standard orthodoxy to accept that one man was responsible for providing us with the Pentateuch which includes both Exodus and Genesis. Since the author of Genesis is the same as Exdous, and the author of Genesis plainly stated that living plants preceded sunlight and critters were on dry land on the sixth day, it would be just a simple matter of applying Occam's Razor to the matter and assume that Moses was not as conflicted as those who seriously attempt to deconstruct his words.
Normally I would be puzzled with why intelligent people who treat scientists as infallible priests and praise the scientific process and logical reasoning as two members of the secular trinity would be so obtuse when given something so simple as this, but the answer was given in the same Scriptures that confound those who simply will accept anything but Truth, and will reject Truth everytime they hear it. (Re: 1 Cor 2:14, and 2 Peter 3:5) So I don't struggle with it anymore, just amused by it.
"Have evolutionists explained abiogenesis or the transformation of inorganic material into organic material?"
[Convoluted backpedaling snipped and translated]?"No"