Likewise, I have never seen anyone who could prove that life came about on its own without God- which is what you are claiming. I have read about filmsy speculation and theories about origin of life that exclude God, but they are never proven. No one can explain the minute molecular changes or massive transformation which had to happen, starting from the most tiny cells. All they said is such changes take billions of years -- but time alone is not proof, is it?
There are a few things to unpack here:
1) First, science doesn't deal with absolute proof. At best, we're going to have a substantive scientific theory on how life arose based on various lines of evidence (including chemical/biological experimentation). If you want to dismiss that as "flimsy", that's your prerogative. However, by that standard, then one would also have to characterize the claim that life arose via supernatural intervention to be at least, if not moreso flimsy.
2) We have evidence that life has existed and changed over time. Such evidence is firmly preserved in the fossil record. I don't think anyone truly disputes the existence of such.
3) The origin of life itself didn't take billions of years on Earth. The earliest life forms trace their origins to hundreds of millions (not billions) of years after the Earth was formed.
How do we explain the God exist even of we we did not see Him create the earth? We judge from the millions of lifeforms we see around us. These are millions of circumstantial evidences. In the court of law today, we do not have to see something happen to prove that it happen. Credible circumstantial evidence carry weight too. If you see millions of such evidences of life and yer claimed they synchronize nicely entirely on their own without God, then you are lying to yourself.
If you're going to necessitat that a supernatural being is required to create life, then what is the specific evidence that supports that?
Simply claiming, "life exists, therefore Godddit" is not a convincing argument. You haven't established a connection between the former being necessitated by the latter. In effect, you're just begging the question.
Appeals to incredulity and/or awe are equally unconvincing. Those are just appeals to emotion.
I have also said before -- the Bible contains valid historical evidences and prophecies to prove that it is credible and true. There are evidences of historical cities and prophecies about Jesus. There are even accurate "scientific verses".
Historical fiction often involves using real time periods, places, people and even events. For example,
Saving Private Ryan was set in a real place during a real event (World War 2), but the specific narrative in the movie is a work of complete fiction.
I find it odd that people appeal to things like the existence of things like historical cities mentioned in the Bible as though that somehow makes the narratives in the Bible become true. Even a cursory understanding of historical fiction should make clear why that connection is faulty.
I've also read up on claims of Biblical prophecy and found none of them hold up to scrutiny when placed against rigorous standards for said prophecy.
Third is personal experience with God - but these cannot be demonstrated to those who havent believe, of course. My personal experience is further substantiated by both points above.
Sure, you have your own personal experiences. However, your personal experiences are not my personal experiences. Thus your own personal experiences don't exactly do me or anyone else any good in that regard.