You've yet to explain how evolution is viable theory when there isn't ONE transititional fossil that proves macroevolution. Where the hell is the evidence? There should be millions of transititional fossils. There are none. Rats provide the largest group of mammal fossils and there is absolutely no evidence of eviolution in rats. Where's the proof?
The first and second laws of thermodynamics prove the universe was created and evolution did not occur. The universe could not have created itself. Spontaneous generation has never been observed. Nor could the universe have always been here, because all available energy would be used up and everything in the universe would have died if it had.
Evolution is based on the absurd idea the universe is going from disorder to order. But the second law of thermodynamics proves otherwise: The Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
Evolution is based on the absurd idea the universe is going from disorder to order. But the second law of thermodynamics proves otherwise: The Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
Have you considered the possibility that the total energy in the Universe is zero (or very close to zero)?
There is nothing in the 2LoT that prohibits natural processes from generating localized decreases in entropy of part of a system as long as the total entropy of the system and its surroundings experiences a net increase.