[[Then you do not understand the second law of thermodynamics.]]
LOL- You might want to try another line of Macroevolutionist parroting talking points- Trust me, Creationists understand it far better than those silly scientists who insist life could have violated the law- Hint- Open systems are even WORSE for your side’s claims- NOT better.
As well, it was suggested that mathematics ‘couldn’t factor in all possible angles when determining whether or not species could evolve’ (I think it was tactic logic that suggested that) and it was suggested that ‘If you bought all possible combinations of hte lottery numbers every day of the week, you could win hte lotto every day’ and apaprently they htought this was representative of Macroevolution evidently because nature throws a myriad of mutations at a species, and htis is supposed to be equivilent of buying all or most combinations of numbers of hte lottery to ‘increase the chance of winning’ (or getting it right’- however, this is a silly silly notion because akin to claiming that static examples of negative entropy equate to dynamic violations of hte law- Mutations are NOT ‘buying combinations of numbers’ in a word as they are ADDING noise, causing LOSS of information, NOT adding legible info of non species specific info that is absolutely required for the hypothetical process of Macroevolution- the anaology between species Macroevolution and lottory tickets is a rediculous analogy (and one that the fella in the link I provided should not have really used except to show, although inneptly, that hte odds are overwhelming against mutaitons adding any non species specific info necessary for macroevolution)
I find it odd that macroevolutionists cling to such overwhelming odds agaisnt their hypothesis, and hten turn right aroudn and claim Creationists practice ‘faith and not science’- but whetver, think what ya like, just don’t expect us to sit silently when such faith in overhwelming odds agaisnt the hypothesis of Macroevolution is on display- Especially in the face of a complete lack of real world evidence supporting such overwhelming odds. And we’re talking/asking for just a few examples of real world evidences, and they can’t even provide those- Yet we’re to beleive the odds were beaten not just a few times, but literally trillions of times? Talk abotu devotion to a religion!
Yet I notice that, for all your bluster and bravado, you do not define the second law, nor state how it is violated by the theory of evolution!
Please state how the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated by the theory of evolution.