Converting raw energy into biological energy

Nothing "created" any process, Rob. You seem to be operating under the assumption that there is some intelligence or intent involved here. There is not. There is only chemistry. When you mix hydrogen and oxygen, and ignite the combination, you get an energetic reaction that produces water. When you mis iron oxide and aluminum and ignite the combination, you get an extremely energetic reaction that produces aluminum oxide and molten elemental iron. Green plants use sunlight to make ATP out of soil nutrients and water, yes - but saying that the "process is dependent on ATP" is as ridiculous as saying that the hydrogen/oxygen reaction is dependent on water.The spontaneity, Rob, is only in having the various ingredients present and then adding the requisite energy through sunlight. Plants are not the only organisms that do this, and there are other forms of energy utilized by other organisms, as well. Many extremophiles use chemical energy and heat bubbling up from geothermal vents. Various forms of bacteria use photosynthesis. It's a chemical process that allows the conversion of solar energy into storable chemical energy, but there was no "spontaneous creation" of this process. It's simply what happens under the correct conditions, and plants have evolved in such a way that they exploit it. Nothing more.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You require ATP for energy, too, Rob. If your body converts food into ATP, and ATP energy was required for you to grow, where did the ATP to grow you come from?Your mother. In the plant's case, the seed from the parent plant.Again, plants did not suddenly spring into being utilizing this process. They evolved from earlier organisms that also used photosynthesis, like the bacteria I mentioned. The first photosynthesizing organisms were likely forms of bacteria, in fact: see here. The very first photosynthesis would have occurred much like the first "life" - the right chemicals happened to be present, and the result was a chemical reaction that would continue to spawn similar reactions so long as the right conditions were present. Imperfections in the spawning process allowed for variation, which resulted in evolution, and eventually in the variety of life we see today. Life is just chemistry, Rob - no processes are "created," elements and molecules simply behave in certain ways due to the laws of nature. The right chemical compounds in the right environment will always perform the same reactions, and no intent, intelligence, or spontaneous creation is necessary.I like the projection, though. Creationists assume spontaneous creation. Evolutionists do not, but creationists accuse evolutionists of doing so.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Irrelevant. Given those conditions, photosynthesis will happen. Saying that environment existing naturally is unlikely is silly, because it quite plainly did and does.So you are correct - there is no problem. Now, try something that's not an argument from incredulity.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Other than the fact that they still exist? Come on Rob. Read the links we provide.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

It does becasue we SEE it occur naturally in plants and bacteria every day. Clearly those conditions can and do exist naturally.That is not an argument from incredulity, Rob, it's an observation.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

And your point being "I cant believe organisms could naturally evolve to utilize such a complex process, despite the fact that plants and bacteria are doing it right now all around me."That's another argument from incredulity, Rob. I know how photosynthesis works, that's not our argument. It exists naturally, right outside your window. If you claim that such a complex process could not naturally come to exist, you'll have to provide some evidence beyond "I dont beleive it can."

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

You realize that abiogenesis is not the same as the origin of photosynthesis, right? It's not likely that the first living organism utilized photosynthesis, and neither did the first photosynthesizing organism form from nonliving material.We assume that the precursors to modern photosynthesizing organisms existed becasue, as Crash pointed out long ago, we have fossil evidence of some of their leavings, and other precursors still exist today like the bacteria I mentioned. They dont have to be dead to be precursors, Rob.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.