The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to quantifiable thermodynamic processes. This law so far appears inviolable. The claim that "order" never arises "spontaneously" from "disorder" stands apart from the Second Law of Thermodynamics because 1) it's not about heat, 2) it's not quantifiable, 3) it's demonstrably false.
For instance, when the universe emitted the flash of light we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background, there were only a few kinds of atoms, mostly hydrogen, helium, and a little lithium, and they were very evenly dispersed.
Since then, much of the universe's mass has clumped gravitationally in a perfectly lawful manner. Stars and galaxies formed. Heavier elements were forged in stars and dispersed through space in supernovae.
In a perfectly lawful fashion we went from a universe that contained virtually no information to the one we see now. No violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was necessary, since the almost-but-not-perfectly evenly dispersed hydrogen of that early CMB universe contained enough 1) gravitational potential, and 2) nuclear energy potential to power the changes. The laws of physics and the passage of time did the rest.
Everything you said about the way in which things were created lawfully is exactly right as it occurred in creation; that is why it was lawful. The Second Law of Thermodynamics was a result of the fall.
Now, according to everything that is observable presently, there is neither explanation nor proof of what you said about the elements present at the beginning. That is called faith; it is unobservable and cannot nor has been reproduced.
About this fella named Alton Harp; I've still never studied about him, but I have studied this Red Shift. Incidentally, as it seems, I didn't consult him for what I said about what the Red Shift was showing. Now if this guy and I agree, great.
You said:"They claim that weaker chemical bonds (caused by faster-flying, low-mass electrons) are good for you. Hah!" You guys continue to prove the Bible, but refuse to read it. Your point on that thing was about aging. And if chemical bonds such as you proport are good for you and occured at the beginng; perhaps you should read how long people lived back then. Up to 900 years. Perhaps because they had good chemical bonds going for them? Perhaps :)
As for your 6000 year comment about going back. You're free to make use of whatever you want to make use of: no skin off anybody's teeth. But if you assume that all things are as they are today you will be wrong in every case you forecast. (Of course, you'll never know that and just continue moving along blindly.) The funny thing about scientists is that they are so pious about this stuff and all they are doing is a form of modeling. Science can only observe PRESENT phenomena. You have no idea and will not ever be able to KNOW what was going on then, but you look very smug doing what you're doing; hence the Biblical term for what we are discussing is "science falsely so called."
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:(KJV) Keep in mind, Science is word plagiarized from a King James Bible in Daniel 1:4.