[tortoise]

if I, say, take some OJ and cranbery juice and pour both of them together in a glass and stir it for a while and stop and then I notice that the OJ and CJ are perfectly separated, that would also not be a violation of the second law, right, on a pure energy basis?

This is a result allowed by thermodynamics. However, thermodynamics would assert that this result is highly improbable.

But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?

There are no "laws of entropy", though thermodynamics does describe a bias toward higher entropy under certain constraints. You can remove entropy from one place by putting it somewhere else, which is perfectly permissible in thermodynamics and why your example does not violate the 2nd law.

There is only a single abstract definition for entropy, but most people are familiar with constrained derivative descriptions (like in thermodynamics). There is no specific requirement for any system to increase its entropy in the theoretical abstract; for thermodynamics that bias exists due to intrinsic properties of our class of universe.

can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?

Your terminology is laden with assumptions that are not actually valid, making it kinda hard to answer that question. For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm. Trying to separate these concepts is a common example of intuition failing.

[jbloedow]

There is no specific requirement for any system to increase its entropy in the theoretical abstract; for thermodynamics that bias exists due to intrinsic properties of our class of universe.

Can you believe these braindead creationist hicks making such antiscientific assumptions? Slander them all I say!

For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm.

No offense, but this is such a load of cr@p. Everything is not an algorithm. Unless you're just trying to say that the physical universe is governed by the laws of physics. But if you're trying to say that every physical entity follows some pre-existing set of built-in instructions, then I think you're on your own from here...

You don't like my assumption that there are physical entities that are not following any preprogrammed set of instructions beyond the laws of physics?