The simplest stable form is affected by the environment. You have stated this yourself previously.

The problem with your claim is that the environment that supports more complex stability is itself, complex.

So, how do we build an environment -- a system -- that permits the stability of complex molecules?

Simple:

Intelligently.

Complex environments do not build themselves. If you attempt to claim that they do, then you are back to square one trying to explain HOW complex systems come into being.

"Chicken or the egg?"

You simply cannot ignore the problems with your claim.



The environment they are in prevents it.

Any "natural" environment has entropic turbulence. The same natural laws that facilitate the binding of certain atoms together may later tear them apart.

This is not unlike the scenario you mentioned earlier with the 8 directions being selected randomly, except that it is not all about randomness because when certain conditions exists the likelihood of other reaction is not a constant.

In fact, more complex molecules have a higher probability of becoming simpler while simpler molecules have a higher probability of becoming more complex.

So your "random direction" model would better fit the real world if probability always favored the point or origin, or some reasonable point close to it.

So, this action does not facilitate increasing complexity in the long run. Instead, it favors whatever its SIMPLE environment favors, which is simplicity.



First of all, none of these facilitates the breaking of simple binding laws. They only change the environment.

Lava cools. Water stabilizes. Lightning is in itself a stabilizing activity, and though it does facilitate a change in some of the base rules for a moment, when the lightning is gone, the previous stabilizing rules are back in effect. Sunlight and other catalytic effects are no different.

This logic is like saying that the ebb and flow of a tide on a beach will form increasingly complex structures. What happens in the real world is cyclical, not linear.



The biggest problem I have with evolution (regardless of the proposed purpose) is the lack of evidence supporting it, and the mathematical improbability (impossibility) of it.

On the other hand, it seems that creating environments just to facilitate a reaction to create a substance as a building block for another environment (or process) and then creating another environment to facilitate another process (and so on) is an extremely inefficient way to create.

The fundamental question is the integrity of the Bible.

That is an important question.



Sudden appearance.