Sword,
What you have said here can be applied to any book. Short of being there and being able to observe for myself, there is no way to know for sure. I choose to believe it by faith however.
That's nice - provided that is you remember that your choosing to believe it as a matter of faith makes it just your personal opinion on the matter and not an argument for a "true for you too" god.
It would be worse. Sir David Attenborough claims that life started in the sea four billion years ago when complex chemicals began to come together. Life from non-life. Observable? If so, where? Demonstrable? If so, how?
Seriously?
The origin of life is uncertain, but biochemistry provided evidence from how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organised themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units. This would be the pre-cursor to cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses suggest that some of these compounds might have originated arrived in comets, which in turn could solve the problem of how they arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists claim that the incomplete answer to the origins of life on earth somehow invalidates evolutionary theory. It does no such thing though because the theory is still confirmed by countless observations of the fossil record, of DNA etc. This is still true even if it turned out that, say, life was started by aliens seeding Earth and then disappearing.
And even if none of that
was he case, you'd still committing the basic logical error of the argument from personal incredulity, closely followed no doubt by the god of the gaps fallacy.
Your efforts here are really, really poor stuff old son. Really poor.