In order for evolution to start, laws have to be broken.
1) Something has to come from nothing.
Wrong. The nature of existence has nothing to do with biological evolution.
2) Matter and energy have to be created from no source.
This is impossible, as known by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
3) Life has to come from lifelessness (abiogenesis).
If a chemical reaction occurs under certain conditions that allows that compound to replicate, is that life? What about viruses, are they living? Fact is, there's no absolute definition of life. Man kind has tried it before and has always found another form of life. What does happen, is the chemical reactions between organic compounds and amino acids have varying degrees of complexity, up to the point that they exist in all creatures of the planet.
Yet no one can tell us where these laws came from.
At what point were they enforced.
Or how they knew how to work so that what we see can exist.
It's simply observation. The laws of Newtonian physics are simply equations that allow us to easily predict the way things behave -- for example, to calculate acceleration, you would use Newton's 2nd law: http://en.wikipedia...._laws_of_motion
You're confusing scientific law (essentially calculation) with legislative law. If the laws of physics worked like legislative law, then they would be constantly broken, and people/things would be penalized and brought to justice for violating them. You don't see Mr. Jones suddenly decide he's going to break the law of gravity and float away to be chased by the physics police or god, do you?
THE BIG BANG:
It's not an explosion of stuff from nothing. This may be the thousandth time I've explained it, but only the first time here, so I'm hoping it will stick with some of you. Big Bang theory explains that since we know the universe is expanding at a particular rate and acceleration, we know that everything had to start at a particular point. Scientists are still trying to figure out what "started" the big bang, even though this is extremely difficult since the big bang would not have happened on the same scale of space and time that we exist in.
The big bang was a rapid expansion of space and time. There was no "before" since time expended with it.
When you say you can't make something from nothing, you are correct.
In fact, we not only know that the 2nd law thermodynamics tells us it's impossible to create matter and energy from nothing, but we also know there is no such thing as nothing. Even if you successfully created a ball of nothing in a lab, for example, that is still something. It would be defined with dimensions... maybe a lack of mass and energy... what shape is your ball of "nothing"? Well, then it's clearly not "nothing".
There are several hypothesis, however, which attempt to explain where this big bang came from.
Creation, however, has A LOT of creating things out of nothing. God allegedly created the sky, the ocean, night and day (without the sun, mind you) all from nothing. The biblical god violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics... unless he created these things from extensions of himself. The bible says, however, "In the beginning there was nothing." it doesn't say "in the beginning there was nothing except for God". So when/where/how did God come to be? Even if God transcends time and space, how would there be "nothing" in the beginning. And since you can't technically have "nothing", it certainly can't be the void that was before "everything" because that too would be "something".
Sorry if I made anyone's head explode.