Anonymous wrote:^^^ that's easy , tell Stephen Hawking to create matter in a vacuum. Then give him a fish that just died with all the chemicals and ingredients right there in the fish and tell him to make it alive.
Sadly you suffer from the same faulty logic that many others do. Just because we can't explain how something works does not automatically mean supernatural involvement is conclusively proved.
Not so long ago, they didn't understand how lightning worked, so they assumed it was a god. We now know better.
Not so long ago they didn't understand what comets are. We now know better.
Some people still believe in astrology, but now most of us know better.
And the list of things ascribed to divine intervention that human science has explained goes on and on, back almost (within the first minimal fraction of a second) after the Big Bang.
There is research on self-organizing systems that implies that certain types of chemicals naturally organize themselves into more and more efficient forms that would ultimately lead to organic molecules and life. See, for example,
http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/02/self-assembling-molecules-offer-new-clues-lifes-possible-origin
There is research that shows that the expansion of space in our universe is actually accelerating, rather than staying constant or slowing down as you would expect. We don't understand why, but we gave the force causing the acceleration a name and said, "Let's figure it out." We didn't just stop and say, "God did it. We poor humans could never understand it. May as well give up now."
This is not to say there is no God. There is nothing that
disproves the existence of a deity, but pointing to natural events whose causes we can't yet explain as evidence of the existence of God is fundamentally logically flawed (not to mention theologically risky, since science has this annoying habit of explaining the things that were previously attributed to God).