The concept of life coming about by random chance is so silly it seems ludicrous to believe.
That's both a straw man and an argument from incredulity.
A cell cannot simply jump into existence - to say that it does is directly contradicting our idea of science.
Indeed it is. That's probably why precisely zero scientists claim that.
We have never seen life come from anything but life, so life must have always existed.
This doesn't make any sense. I've never seen myself come from anything other than my mother, therefore I have always existed. I've never seen oil come from anything other than dinosaurs, therefore oil has always existed. I've never seen pixels come from anything other than a computer, therefore pixels have always existed. I've never seen Harry Potter come from anything other than the imagination of J K Rowling, therefore Harry Potter has always existed.
Humans not having directly observed something doesn't mean that that thing didn't happen.
According to science, we need a source of life at the beginning.
What particular theory are you referring to, here? Please be specific.
Seeing as the evolutionary beginning of life has less than no evidence, I feel that pretty much any other position has a better explanation.
Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different things.
And there is not "less than no evidence" for abiogenesis. There's not enough evidence to say with any certainty how life came about, but all the time more and more evidence is found which supports the fact of abiogenesis.
Furthermore, there is "less than no evidence" for the existence of God.
The fact that we cannot hold God in our hand or see Him under a microscope does not mean that He does not exist.
That there is no evidence that God exists is a pretty good reason to assume that he doesn't. Of course, anybody who believes themselves rational should be open to the possibility that he does - however vanishingly small that possibility may be - but that doesn't mean that the assumption that he doesn't is unsound.
