Well I suppose that God did say things like, "Let the earth bring forth plants". That could be seen as life coming from the ground I suppose.
That’s not an explanation, it is merely a claim with the “God did it” included.
The “God did it” is also not explanation.
Explanations required to explain -
- WHAT the phenomena is?
- HOW the phenomena work?
- WHAT possible applications there are if you are able to answer the 1st two questions?
- HOW you would implement the applications?
The proposed explanations would have to be also FALSIFIABLE, meaning there must be some ways TO TEST the explanations.
And the only ways to test, is through observations of the EVIDENCE or observations through EXPERIMENTS.
The observations aren’t just “seeing” the evidence with one’s own eyes.
Observations can also detection of some things that cannot be seen, by using detection devices or instruments, eg EM receiver that can detect radio signals, or optical or radio telescopes to observe or record distant stars, galaxies, pulsars, etc, microscopes to aid in seeing microscopic objects, etc
Some observational devices not only detect, but they may have multiple functions that are just essential as detection, eg -
- the ability to qualify the number of evidence,
- the ability to measure,
- the ability to test (eg comparison tests, to analyze specific signatures of the phenomena, etc).
You cannot observe, measure or test God.
You cannot observe, measure or test supernatural events, like miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.
The fact that you believe that god is the agency to create nature or to create life, make your claim UNFALSIFIABLE (untestable).
Such claim that “God did it”, isn’t an explanation at all. It is an assertion without any mean to test it.