I thought you were making the claim for certainty "tongue in cheek" all along. I wish I could recall who made the statement to the effect that evolution is the only reasonable explanation, because its alternative, that God created the Universe, is repugnant (from memory not a direct quote).
the evidense for Rome is overwhelming, even though we seem to have a little dificulty in replicating Caesar.
History is a different discipline than science, with different evidentiary standards. What does replicating Caesar have to do with anything? It sounds as though you are placing the theory of evolution under the discipline of history now, instead of science, as an explanation for not having replicated life experimentally(?) You previously stated that you had faith in science, so I took it that you placed evolution under science, not history . . .
If God created life via natural laws, then what is needed here for explantaion are natural laws, not God.
And God created the natural laws . . . Where do orderly laws come from in the materialist view? (just asking)
Compare the cells in your body to the cells in your body four days after a fatal heart attack. Same molecules...
That is the point. The same molecules, but they are not presumably still alive at some point after a fatal heart attack. The evidence is that life comes from something living, not something non-living, or something that was alive but is now dead. Even cloning.
You seem to have skipped several hundred important steps there, a common tactic of those who intentionally mis-interpret science for political goals.
What does politics have to do with it? My message was clear that I was asking how the theory of evolution accounts for the origin of life. And I mentioned that evolution is not a priori inconsistent with my worldview, although I remain skeptical because there are gaps in the evidence . . .
Using the basic chemicals available on earth billions of years ago and ultraviolet light and lighting-simulating electrical zaps, the building blocks are coming together.
Based upon this explanation, there obviously does not presently exist a scientific hypotheses explaining how life occurred. It is speculation, which ** feeds into ** science in that it leads to scientific inquiry. HOWEVER, the predicted time dilation in gravity(for example) has since its postulation as a theory been scientifically verified. It is grounded science. The theory of evolution is not science in this same sense, and not because it is not physics. Verifiable scientific experiments take place in the biological sciences, too.
For a theory to be proven, it must be shown that a hypothesis can be made, and that there is evidense to back it up, and that the evidense can be used to make a prediction, that can then be shown to be true or false.
What you have described is a type of logical inference, which is used in science; but science also requires verifiable results in the physical world. You believe that science will in time explain all this, but that is belief and not science. No reason to belittle people who don't believe what you believe.