[spunkets]

"it says nothing about how it got there or what could have put it there."

The systems arise naturally. The mechanism given is a natural one, not a designed system like your watch example.

" expecting me to infer and believe it got there on its own from extraneous natural processes!"

I don't expect anyone in particular to be able to know what it means, or understand it. A scientist will recognize and understand the simple physics presented there. It's basic. If someone is interested in the truth of the matter and doesn't understand it, he'll ask questions. It was sufficient to show one example of reletively simple chemistry that results in an oscillation around the equilibrium point, to disprove the need to claim, or infer design in such systems.

Natural processes are not extraneous.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

The systems arise naturally. The mechanism given is a natural one, not a designed system like your watch example.

Showing that a system exists, as these examples do, does not say how it came to be or how it came to be where it is, by natural progression or by having been put there by a designer.

Since the scientific facts as presented do not show how it got there, your assertion that it is natural is unsupported by facts and is an assumption on your part, the very assumption you wish to prove.