Your questions are based on a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The 2nd law only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. There is a giant nuclear reactor called the sun outside of the system that pumps more or less an endless supply of new energy into the system.
To stick with this one, the creationists have to deny the existence of the sun -- or at least its effect on the earth.
Not only that, but even if the earth was a closed system, that wouldn't guarantee the combined entropy of all systems on the earth is lower than it was in the past. The combined biomass of all life on earth is so insignificant next to the mass of the Earth that an increase in complexity of life would have no significant effect on its entropy. Even if the biomass itself was a closed system, there's no guarantee that its entropy is lower now than it was at any previous point in evolutionary history. Does 200 lbs. of protozoans have more or less entropy than a 200 lb. person? I don't know. Good luck to anyone trying to measure that!
Sorry about going off, but the whole 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument is so off-the-wall and ludicrous that it boggles my mind; many creationists even know better than to use it.
The Law is the Law regardless of whether you are in what you imagine to be a closed system or an open system. Sorry. That's the Law.
Energy is lost to entropy whether one is in a closed system or open. Energy derived from an external source which by its existence supplements the total energy to the open system does not by its existence restore all the energy lost by that which inhabits the open system. Entropy still occurs in open systems; one may not assume that any or all of the externally sourced energy present in the system is able to be made available to the "engines" in the open system to the point of reversing energy lost to entropy.
In any other observable example, "engines" are designed to utilize the energy to make that energy useful to the point of being able to perform work. The more efficient the engine, the more work per unit of energy is accomplished. An engine does not just happen to assemble itself into any form of operating machine from a bucket of bolts and block just because someone pours a continuous stream of gas on it and lights a match.
Taking a simplistic illustration one more step, like a full gas station that has a pump lacking a pump hose and a car that just ran out of gas pulled up next to it, there can be an abundance of potential energy, and painfully little truly available energy to the point of its being useful to the open system.
There is a giant nuclear reactor called the sun outside of the system that pumps more or less an endless supply of new energy into the system.
And by the same logic the enclosed system of your desk top computer will also run forever if it has a limitless supply of electricity?
Part of the heat lost to entropy from the computer is derived from the power going in. Another source of loss to systemic entropy is the gradual physical degradation of the circuit board itself. The circuit board is a well ordered piece of machinery even as it was designed and created to be.
Just because the supply of energy continues to enter the system does not mean that it also functions to prevent the system from going from its working (ordered) state to a broken down (disordered) state with time. That complex circuitry will fail someday. The 2nd Law allows one to predict as much.
Does keeping your car continually supplied with gasoline reverse the contributions of engine fatigue, or rust from forming in the quarter panels?
Biological systems -- quite a bit more complex than computer circuit boards -- fail -- and die -- not entirely by the same mechanisms as do cars and circuit boards, but certainly under the same principles embodied in the Law. Quark2005, as the physicist he claims to be, admits he does not understand thermodynamics (so then by his implication a scientist who happens to be a creationist suffers from what is his deficiency.) Still, a physicist doesn’t need to chase his tail like Quark2005 does in his post to make the simplest observation any freshman-level scientist (if not a school yard 4th grader) may readily make – decay happens in the face of that ever present stream of solar energy too. Decay is accelerated in living systems, in chemical systems, and in physical systems in many instances because of exposure to solar energy.
As evolution would have it, a constant stream of electrons should cause your computer to decide in its best interest to evolve eventually -- if just given enough time -- from a mere desktop to a super computer. Just keep pumping that stream of gas and that Yugo you have will someday become a Maserati. Just give them more time and they’ll overcome mathematical and thermodynamic impossibilities -- or so they think.
Today’s clowns in academia can’t cause in their own labs under conditions designed by their own self-elevated intellects to make happen what they believe philosophically happened in nature – in an open system no less – all by chance. Sadly, in their minds the more they repeat this pap within the confines of their closed intellects, the more scientific these guys think it all sounds.
That’s not science. That’s merely premise re-inforced by self-delusion.