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.
True. But how complex does it need to be to produce the first complex molecules? As complex as an underwater volcanic rift?
Can those first complex molecules be stable enough to continue existence outside of the complex environment? Amino acids have been found on comets and meteorites. The meteorites and comets did not have complex environments at the time the amino acids were found yet the acids endured. That fact alone shows that complex molecules can continue to exist outside of the complex environment in which they were formed.
Ok. Starting at "ground" level, what is it about the "settling" of matter into its "simplest stable form" that prevents formation of amino acids?
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.
It may. It may also make complex molecules that are not so easily torn apart by a change in environment.
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.
The 8 random directions was a scenario for evolution but it can still apply here. If there were 8 random things that could happen to a molecule and one of them was to move to an environment that was not going to break it apart then the millions/billions of molecules made in a complex environment would have at least some that would "survive" (for lack of a better word).
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.
Not if one of the "directions" was an environment not hostile to the molecule but outside of the "complex creative" environment. The buildup of the complex molecules (increase solution concentration) in the subsequent environment would actually change it such that other reactions might occur to make even more complex molecules.
1. Volcanic activity.
2. Dissolving of elements and compounds into the water.
3. Discharge of static electricity (Lightning).
4. Water current flow caused by heating by the Sun.
5. Catalytic effect of mineral substrates.
First of all, none of these facilitates the breaking of simple binding laws. They only change the environment.
Which you said could facilitate the building of complex molecules.
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.
Certainly these environments change but not after building complex molecules. Besides an underwater volcanic vent can be around for many thousands of years. How many complex molecules could it make in that time? Billions per day?
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.
Complex structures are made by the tides. Caves, rock formations, tide pools....
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.
You say this but have not actually supported it with any math calculations at all. Could you reference a statistical calculation somewhere on the web.
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.
Not really. Industrial chemical processes are performed in just that manner. Chemicals are mixed in one environment to a particular concentration and then moved to another environment where the high concentration of the new compound coupled with the new environment causes more complex molecules to be built. These methods are profitable for the chemical company, so they are obviously not inefficient.
The fundamental question is the integrity of the Bible.
Only if you have to have Genesis be literal history. There are stories in other parts of the Bible that are not considered true yet they have value as life lessons.
Without using the Bible and without using any direct reference to evolution or abiogenesis, please identify the positive evidence for the direct and recent creation of life on Earth.
Sudden appearance.
Please expound on this. Sudden appearance of all species at the same place in the fossil record just like it says in Genesis?
