Living things from non-living things?

This belongs in the Biology section, though that's just a whole bunch of kids asking for people to do their homework for them.

Here is a basic run down, but I would encourage more research, it's really interesting.

The first "life" would not be recognized by the average person as life. It would look even less alive than a modern virus. It would be a small self-replicating organic molecule that consumes energy/resources from the environment in it's replication.

This would have happened with many different self-replicating molecules and when some protocells carry multiple molecules, they consume the resources more efficiently than any molecules alone. This small competition is enough to provide a selective advantage and touch off evolution. Evolution occurred rapidly (relatively) eventually giving rise to cells we would consider "alive".

The line the demarks what is alive and what is not is rather arbitrary. Such an arbitrary line cannot be defended when we are talking about abiogenesis.

This is not science it is alchemy, and poor alchemy at that. It is astonishing to me how some men of science excuse themselves from the scientific method (see below) in order to free themselves from God.

Ask scientists in the science section (Biology)

We had to get here somehow, and other than in religious circles, no one "knows" how. The scientist who reject any religion (which are not inclusive to ALL scientists), think they might know how, but the 'MIGHT' is very transparent . . . they don't KNOW. So, I think God made life, being life himself. No one can disprove that.

why do you assume that all atheists are biologists, chemists and physicists?