Error #1: Matter and energy are created and destroyed and we see it in action. That's why I corrected your misstatement the first Law. Next.
then how does evolution account for the seeming creation from nothing of life as we know it?
Error #2: Life as we know it was not created from nothing (except in fairy tales or mythology). Next.
Reductio ad absurdum would show that since life comes from life,
Error #3. Nothing shows "life comes from life". The definition of life itself is rather fuzzy for modern biologists. Next.
either life has always existed (negated by the 2nd law of thermodynamics)
Error #4: No, life has not always existed. Nor is such a proposition negated by your poor understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. Next.
or there was an initial causal action that began life.
Error #5 While possible, there is no reasons to presume so and, most importantly, it is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.
I hope that helps your understanding.
"Matter and energy are created and destroyed and we see it in action"
Example please...
"Error #2: Life as we know it was not created from nothing
Error #3. Nothing shows "life comes from life". The definition of life itself is rather fuzzy for modern biologists."
The law of biogenesis and simple observation (something that science is supposedly driven by) show that rabbits come from rabbits and people com from people.
Error #4: No, life has not always existed. Nor is such a proposition negated by your poor understanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
Life has not always existed! Wow, we agree on something. Secondly, how is my understanding of "things go from order to disorder" poor? If life had always existed then the universe would be static. Since that is not the case, then Life had a beginning which (per the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) came from matter that must have been created by something outside our closed system universe.
Error #5 While possible, there is no reasons to presume so and, most importantly, it is not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.
See above, and it abosolutely is relevant to the Theory (by the way, nice to see some still calling it a theory) of Evolution.