>This particular claim of yours only hold's any merit if you're certain that all religions are completely false.

Well, all evidence and livable experience points strongly towards that being the case.

>A religious person will say a train station exists in a spot even though it doesn't?

Yes. An allegory for every dogma. Every statement of faith works like that.

Just for the record, it's you that specifically asked for it to be spelled out. It is not me being condescending to a religious person.

Anyway, let's clear that up.

Any religion's claim to the origins of life or the world is just like me claiming to know how to get to the next train station from your home. A fabrication.

Now the scientific approach would be to gather data, and then postulate a hypothesis. So a scientist would try to find out your address, the address of the nearest train station and then would plot the proper route.

And now it gets really funny: a religious person will, in the very likely case that my directions are wrong, still claim they are true, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.

Then would you please follow my instructions and tell me if you ended up at a train station.

Let me demonstrate:

If you (specifically you, not a hypothetical you) want to get to the next train station, just exit your home, turn right. Follow that road the next intersection, then turn left. Follow that road for five miles, and you will find the train station on your right.

Is this claim credible?

A theory that cannot be falsified is not a theory. It's a fabrication.

That is true. And science doesn't claim to have answers those questions. While religion does. This disqualifying itself from being taken seriously in any discourse about the beginning of our existence.

It's a misconception. It's not "nothing turned into everything", it's "most things, given enough time, turn into different things".