>There are elements that exist today, but won't in the future due to half life
>Protons too, technically have a Half-life
>This points to the fact that the state of life is in perpetual functional destruction, not functional progression.

This leads me to believe that, since the reality in which we live is not "stable", and elements only react the way they do to remain or become stable in their state to prolong their decay, that there is no practical reason as to why the elements would work "together" to create something as complex as life. The rules of the game for the non-living is very selfish, and the thing called LIFE bends those rules, demanding that these elements function in a way that is not inherent to their qualities. If it were inherent, non-life would beget life on its own. But we do not see this, we see that only life can beget life. If life was really due to the uneven distribution of matter that happened to bond in an uneven distribution of chemical states, throughout the universe, wouldn't we continue to see life begotten out of non-life in our supposed "perfect" environment? Or was there a more "perfect" environment in the past that allowed these things to happen?

Thinking this, I believe the opposite to be true of the widely accepted notion of evolutionary theory. Whatever that maybe.

am I wrong to think this?