archetypal fool

Well, this is still one of the current problems within science. It's a little hard to make an experiment which will verify any claim as to the origins of life, seeing as we still aren't 100% sure as to the composition or environment of the young Earth, similar to the case of verifying the Big Bang or String Theory. These are all things which will be contained in though-experiments and conceptualization for some time to come.

Seeing as you don't believe in evolution, I'll take it you're not a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but the first 3 chapters of his book 'The Selfish Gene' do a great job of explaining one of the leading theories as to the origins of life. Basicall, here's how it works (I won't get too technical, I promise, but I'm a Biology major, so forgive me... ):

The early oceans were filled with amino and nucleic acids (which are even present in asteroids and comets). By random chance (I think this is the property which throws people off of evolution), some bundles of nucleic acids began to reproduce (since they compliment themselves at the molecular level). The bundles of nucleic acids were independent of each other, and eventually, the nucleic acids began to get used up more and more as more and more bundles reproduced. Those who became more efficient at collecting or keeping the molecules were more likely to "survive" since they would be able to reproduce more often, and as a result, viola, natural selection! Fast forward trillions or quadrillions of generations, and here we are.

Problems most non-believers see with this:

Entropy: As you pointed out entropy is always increasing, but not as explicitly as we would expect. The universe isn't just breaking down to the lowest possible denomination, because then there wouldn't be complex molecules ANYWHERE, and even in the absence of life, there are always processes which create more and more complexity (e.g, supernovas), while at the same time creating entropy. In reality, this subject is WAY too complicated to discuss without bringing in mathematics and ugly terminology.

Probability: Yes, the chances of two or more nucleic acids finding each other and also becoming reproductive are astronomical (say, 1 in a billion trillion, or more). But, if you couple this with an ocean of trillions of trillions of trillions of such molecules, then there WILL be such an occurrence. The same equally applies to the random mutations which contribute to evolution and natural selection.

If there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of a mutation happening in your genes, you'd say that's high. If there's a point mutation (more on this later) in your genes, there's a 60% chance that nothing happens (since different codons can code for the same amino acid - think of it as back-up, just in case of a mutation), 39% chance of a disadvantageous defect, and a 1% chance of a beneficial change, then, again, in a population of millions or billions, there will be some individuals which gain advantages, and that's where natural selection steps in.
[Note: These percentages are dependent on the type of mutation. Point mutations are less influential, but more common, while insertions or deletions are much rarer, but VERY much more influential. Also, there's no set of percentages the way I have presented them here (i.e, 60%, 39%, 1%), but I feel this is as close to correct (considering point mutation, not insertions or deletions) as can be represented with percentages. Insertions and deletions are more like 0% chance of nothing happening, 99.9% chance of something bad happening, and 0.1% chance of something good.]

Well...That's as far as I'm willing to take it. I'm sure you're all bored to death, but if you're interested, look up 'The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins or 'Genome' by Ridely. Maybe knowing this extra information is why I so strongly support evolution. I know that if more people would actually study biology, a lot of misconceptions would be removed from the public eye.

Again, I apologize.

Evolution is can easily be found in laboratories. The only problem is some people refuse to consider it full-blown evolution. I'm talking, of course, of bacterial transformation.

Given enough time, money, and resources, larger, more complex animals can be seen to evolve. I suspect the next big trials for evolution will come from fruit flies, since they're so easy to keep alive and reproduce so copiously (both are pluses).

Also on the subject of full-blown evolution, some don't believe that animals will become "other" animals. That is, a fish never became an amphibian, which never became a reptile, which never became a mammal or bird. To this, there's one clear example which trumps this argument: Dinosaurs and birds. There's an obvious correlation in the skeletal structures of dinosaurs and birds which even the most clouded fundamental Christian can't deny.