How did it start?

No one can explain how the first living cell came into existence.

So the point being that you must take God into consideration if you are going to examine all of the evidence am I correct?

But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical,that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic.

What you have given are nothing more than hypothesis and crude kitchen experiments all the while failing to answer the question as to where the first living cell came from.With that being demonstrated let me move on.Proving that something exists is simple. Just show where it is.
Proving that something does not exist is not as simple as it might seem. First, you investigate all you know. After you have explored all you know, and all that anyone else knows, and found nothing, you have only one more thing to do. Investigate the unknown.
Wait a minute. How do you investigate the unknown? The answer is, you can’t. As much as you might expand your knowledge, even to the ends of every detail in the universe, you cannot escape the idea that there might be something more beyond that.
Some atheists or agnostics will use the following demonstration: God, if you exist, strike me down, now! When God does not oblige by striking them down, they rest on the proof that God does not exist.
Suppose I make an analogy: I tell you all about my friend Bob, and what a great guy he is. Since you never have met Bob, and he sounds a little eccentric to you, maybe you do not choose to believe I have a friend named Bob. Maybe you don’t think I deserve such a friend. Or maybe you think it’s out of character for me to have any friends! So you decide to put an end to my fakery by calling out to the sky, Bob, if you exist, come punch me in the nose! Since Bob does not show up, you confront me with the fact that there is no Bob, and ask me not to speak of him again.
What did you do wrong? You didn’t use the proper mode of communication to reach Bob. Had you asked me before your test, I could have told you that Bob is visiting his aunt, and gave me her number: 555-6789! You could have contacted Bob, and believed in him.
It is similar in the case of asking God to strike you down. God is willing to prove his existence to you in many ways, but asking him to upset the natural order of the world he set up is not in His usual repertoire. The way Saul was converted is a notable exception. But most of us receive some small reassurance or answer to prayer to help us on the road to faith. That’s what you should ask God for. A small sign that would seem insignificant to others, but which would be proof to you, because it came very soon after you asked for it.Throughout the gospels, Jesus makes it clear that God fulfills our requests based on faith. Asking vainly to be struck down by God, expecting nothing to happen, is rewarded according to its measure of faith.

Which "History" are you specifically referring to and to which "God"?
Man has many but only one exists.
In order to state that there is no proof for God's existence, you would have to know all of the alleged proofs that exist in order to then make the assumption that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since you cannot know all things, you cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.
At best, an atheist can only proclaim that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. You could even say that you believe there are no proof(s) for God's existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there that exist and that you simply have not yet encountered one.
Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's omnipotence, would you be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure on your part. Therefore, you as an atheist are presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and are less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

If, despite near virtual impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest of reason to believe they could ever form a membrane encased, self reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.a There is no evidence that any stable state exists between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist in history has ever demonstrated that this fantastic leap in complexity could have happenedeven if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.
To believe anything otherwise would take a huge leap of faith on the atheists side.

It has everything to do with the topic

If, despite near virtual impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest of reason to believe they could ever form a membrane encased, self reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell.a There is no evidence that any stable state exists between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist in history has ever demonstrated that this fantastic leap in complexity could have happenedeven if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.
To believe anything otherwise would take a huge leap of faith on the atheists side.

living ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lvng)
adj.
Possessing life: famous living painters; transplanted living tissue.
In active function or use: a living language.
Of persons who are alive: events within living memory.
Relating to the routine conduct or maintainance of life: improved living conditions in the city.
Full of life, interest, or vitality: made history a living subject.
True to life; realistic: the living image of her mother.
Informal. Used as an intensive: beat the living hell out of his opponent in the boxing match.

Can you possibly stay on topic.