Zechariah,
You understand little or nothing about science - actually, probably less than nothing. The same sorts of scientists who made the discoveries which allow you to tabulate your list of "facts from introductory physics" also discovered the evidence for evolution. By focussing on abiogenesis you miss the point that abundant evidence exists for evolution of species.
You also totally fail to see the difference between a scientist and a creationist. A creationist cannot conceive of his or her beliefs being wrong. So, all new data must conform to preconceived beliefs. A scientist, on the other hand, really couldn't care less personally whether any theory or not is correct. No scientist would lose sleep if they found out that life came about because aliens seeded the planet. They would be excited. If God turned out to exist and have created life, and had also every-so-often destroyed the majority of species for the fun of it - well, that would be interesting too.Personally, though, I don't know why anyone would want to worship a God who invented smallpox, the black death, komodo dragons and religion.
That's the difference between the scientific method and the idicy - for it is that - that you expound - were all people to think like you then we would still be torturing people for not believing that the Earth is the center of the Universe. I'd vote for a an atheist woman for president any day - just look how bloodthirsty all these born again Christian men are!
I'd also add that any scientist who could overthrow the idea of evolution would get a nobel prize. That's how science works - the incentive is to destroy current theories because that provides a true test of their viability.
gedanken