Well there of course is the Genesis narrative that provides better detail. Yet I am stumped in trying to guess how you interpret the phrase in Exodus 20 "...and all that is in them..." to somehow exclude life. What else could it possibly be?
The reason I chose the Exodus passage is that I know many people have rationalized away Genesis, as you are trying to rationalize away this one too. Many people say something like "God is big enough to use evolution" but refuse to acknowledge that the same God is also big enough to do so in an instant or in six literal days. There is reason for all of Creation being six literal days, and that is why I posted the Exodus passage. For those who claim to be Christians and deny six literal days are the same people who will deny the Sabbath which is one of the Top Ten commandments, for the Sabbath has its foundation in the six day Creation.
I think it is also noteworthy that the Bible says God created people from clay
Why stop there? Have evolutionists explained abiogenesis or the transformation of inorganic material into organic material? In order to be scientific, making life out of non-life must be demonstrated, otherwise the claim that life came from non-life via an "accident" is nothing but religious ramblings and speculation. The Goo to You Theorists must make many miraculous claims in their attempt to deny the miracle of Creation. Its clearly a rejection of one religion for the adoption of another. What is shameful is that the Johnny-come-lately worshippers of the House of Chance arrogantly state that their Science that is not science proves the existance of the god of Chance. All it really proves is that they have a particular dogmatic bias in the examination of evidence.
Matter. That is, matter, as opposed to organized matter. Given that interpretation, the author of the thread is consistent. And, I think that is how he interprets it.
"The reason I chose the Exodus passage is that I know many people have rationalized away Genesis, as you are trying to rationalize away this one too."
I don't have an agenda to tear down Exodus - I was just pointing out that there is an another interpretation. I don't claim to be right.
"Have evolutionists explained abiogenesis or the transformation of inorganic material into organic material?"
In terms of developing a law or principle that says elements A and B mix together via X process to produce Y life form - no. Hypotheses, based upon current assumptions of what the Earth's early environment was like, have been formulated to try to explain how synthesis of organic molecules and formation of ordered systems demonstrating homeostatic properties could have occured. The merit of these hypotheses has been reinforced by recreation in laboratories. Their weakness lies in whether we have accurately assumed what the Earth's early environment was like and determining if said reactions occured. No matter how plausible, possible, convenient, et cetera, if the reactions didn't occur, then it does nothing to shed light on how life began.
Darwin proposed the theory of evolution to explain the diversity of species in the Families, Orders and Geni established by zoologists decades earlier. It provides evidence for how the process of evolution works, not why. Evolution does not (and cannot) explain how life originated. You're asking more of the theory than it can provide, something an honest scientist, or student of evolution would not do.