To everyone who invokes the second law of thermodynamics as counter-proof to evolution.?

They just twist the truth around- see here

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

-You first need a mechanism in place for storing and converting the incoming energy.

-The second law still applies to open systems.

As Dr. John Ross of Harvard University (not a creationist) said, "...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems" (Chemical and Engineering News).

T. Wallace is right: "...simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or 'build-up' rather than 'break-down'). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation)" (Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism).

As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said, "The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex—the human body lacks the mechanisms to harness raw solar energy. If you stood in the sun too long, you would get skin cancer, because the sun’s undirected energy will cause mutations. (Mutations are copying errors in the genes that nearly always lose information). Similarly, undirected energy flow through an alleged primordial soup will break down the complex molecules of life faster than they are formed. It’s like trying to run a car by pouring petrol on it and setting it alight. No, a car will run only if the energy in petrol is harnessed via the pistons, crankshaft, etc. A bull in a china shop is also raw energy. But if the bull were harnessed to a generator, and the electricity directed a pottery-producing machine, then its energy could be used to make things" (The Second Law of Thermodynamics).

The second law of thermodynamics deals with the random movement of inanimate particles in a closed system. It has absolutely nothing to do with biological systems. Which only serves to demonstrate the total ignorance of basic scientific concepts among those who make such claims.

People who say that the 2nd law of thermo disproves evolution always miss out the word 'closed', because they're ignorant or intellectually dishonest, usually both.

Recommended reading for these freaks:

What is Life? -Erwin Schrodinger

Some creationists understand thermodynamics and on their web sites they urge other other creationists not to make idiots of themselves with that ridiculous argument about the 2nd law. Those creationists who do not understand that will not understand your question.

What?

First, thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution and second the sun is a perfect explication of the second law. What the hell are you talking about?

I heard only 55% of Americans know that the sun is a star...

The 2nd law disproves Creationism as well because they first have to prove their myth as a whole.

well, technically the sun is not flaming gas but a huge ball of hydrogen atoms that are forced into nuclear fusion due to the gravitational force, but other than that you're correct

Flaming gas? I get that every time I eat Taco Bell, what's new?