Sorry for the misunderstanding, in my language things are a little more generically implied than in English, but that's no excuse for poor choice of words, so that's on me.

Here is what I actually meant: The claim that life evolved from inanimate matter is one of the things I have not found proof of, and therefore it fits on the set of arguments I hold as "undecided", per se. It means I do not reject it entirely, I am open minded to a discussion about it and I welcome conclusive evidence related to it, because I know that it is unlikely that I have been presented to all the facts. Since it is probable that I will never be, I remain in a constant state of "computing" the argument. I will always hear new information about it, but the ones I was presented to so far, failed in proving conclusively, at least to the extent of my limited knowledge and intellect, that there is any form of life coming from inanimate matter. There is also the possibility that I misunderstood some of the info I already received, which gives me more reason to be open about the subject.

My personal belief is that life was created, designed intentionally with specific purposes, and intelligent life even more so. I still consider the possibility that I am wrong, but until I find conclusive evidence of life and intelligence coming out of "nowhere" - or something other than another life form or intelligent creature -, I remain believing in the most plausible and understandable answer from my perspective: someone made it.

Evolution is a whole other matter. In my previous comment, I have not proposed any argument against evolution because I do not believe I should. Abiogenesis refers to a set of arguments about the beginning of life that are, to say the least, hard to assess, let alone prove. So I just wait for an extremely amazing, albeit improbable argument for it. On the other hand, Evolution possess a bigger amount of acceptance and understanding and an even larger amount of more consistent evidence. Therefore, arguments to prove it or doubt it are not as simple as the ones I laid for abiogenesis. Their complexity notwithstanding, unfortunately, I find no mutual intellectual respect from the vast majority of the people who accepted evolution as a fact, so I can have a neutral discussion about it, which may be simply furthering my acceptance, if any, of this statement as fact.

My perspective so far has been, I was explained the creationist beliefs, they made sense to me, I accepted it and was satisfied with it. Later in life I was introduced to the scientific view of the matter, who rejected my beliefs as irrational and proposed a concept that not only did not make sense at first, but was also incredibly poor explained, if that, since most of the time, I was advised to either accept it or be considered a irrational, stupid person, which I truly do not believe I am. I did not hold that against evolution, since knowledge itself can't be blamed by how people use it, specially being that human beings can be pretty nasty towards one another. So I looked up for myself, without relying on others to explain it to me. I studied it more than I studied my actual beliefs. They remain, so far, not something I understand and therefore believe in. Now, this means that whether or not evolution is true, which is not what I am arguing, I remain a creationist because, me, /u/lufernaal have not found reason to believe it. Whether other people believe or not, whether they can help me or not, or whether they care, is another matter. To me, it is important that I acquire knowledge, since it has been proven to be useful in my life. What other people say about it, I regard as "human being humans". It is separated. That is why there is no spread of my belief in creation, I believe other people should have the same respect from me, before I ask, the respect of accepting that someone has a reason to believe in evolution and that the truth is independent of whether or not me or this person is right. If eventually, I find out evolution was the truth, I will have no problem believing in it, since my belief in creation will, at this time, stop making sense and evolution will. It has happened before, so I don't worry. What I don't like is to have my understanding being taken as some sort of agenda for political or sociological propositions.

Argument seems to carry the idea that there is a concept, an information, a truthful knowledge that is to be found by intelligent creatures and gradually understood through logic and reason, which could result in some application in real life. I think logic is perfect. Reason as well.

The only problem in the equation - to me - is the people in between. The human mind, which is the reason why I refrain to "spread" to others my beliefs, as if they were to be taken as scientific statements. They aren't and they shouldn't be. They are my beliefs. Whether or not they are true is something I need to check for myself. It is my understanding that the truth will remain the way it is regardless of mine or anyone else's acceptance of it, so this takes a little bit of the edge of, making the pursuit for the truth less about arguing with other people over what is right or wrong and more about knowing something that will satisfy my intellectual needs. That means that the actual truth, independent of the human mind finding out or not, is not going to change. And that makes me feel better. Debates can only change whether or not a group of people get to know this truth, even if they are absolutely sure of it. The truth itself is part of reality, outside of our minds, and it is not affected by what we think the reality actually is. Since I do not think that humans are even capable of knowing everything so their judgement, statement or belief can be hold as the "truth", I take every concept, theory or belief with levels of trust in it. Evolution just happens to be very low, while creationism is very high. I am not excluding the possibility that one day, previous or new info will be presented in a way I can understand as a fact and therefore, since I think of myself as an intellectually sincere person, I will accept it as the truth, just as I accept creationism now. Change on my beliefs do not affect whether or not I pursuit the truth.

I do not think I will magically come up with the best argument to support my beliefs, because regardless of the content, the topic will remain as polemic as it is. And I actually reasoned that the debate is - in most cases - not about the truth anymore, not about two people with opposite views trying to make sense of the universe they are in. It has become a matter of pride and social status. Being atheist means you're smart, being religious means you're a bigot, being atheist means you don't have any morals, being religious means you're a saint. All human perspective, all as plausible to be equivocated as mine could be. What I look for is only what makes sense, what I understand and can rely on. Creationism checks all of these boxes. Evolution, so far, doesn't. I still read scientific journals about these kinds of findings with the same neutrality I have when I read the bible. It makes me sad that in most of my conversation, specially in the internet, this is just taken as a fight, and not a sharing of knowledge, something I appreciate very much.

Finally, I don't claim to refute evolution as a scientific fact. If I am considering only scientists as reliable sources for the truth, evolution has given more than enough evidence to be taken as a fact. I reject anyone else's, scientist or not, definition of truth, given without my understanding. Simply put people can be, and they often are, wrong. I can be wrong. But my own understanding of something is my reason to believe anything, not someone else's, regardless of who it is. And I don't think that's biased. At first, relativity didn't make sense to me, I studied it a little more and I got it. Now I believe in it. Same with quantum mechanics and pretty much all sorts of scientific inquiries. But that's the point: I have to understand it, to know, by myself, not because of anyone else's presumed intellectual authority, that the thing I am learning about is a fact. That's the only way I know how to learn something and start believing in it. I studied both and I reasoned that creationist is something I can understand, as for evolution is rather far away from any resemblance of a concept in my mind.