However, the first law of thermodynamics have proven to us that by the following statement, that the second laws of thermodynamics have been quite faulty itself. By asking yourself the following question: "have you ever wondered why your car wears out?" Why it doesn't
get shinier, faster, and more trouble free with each passing year? As
obvious as the answer seems, it took scientists many years to formally
define the cause as the action of the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of nature states that every process results in a net increase
in entropy. This means that all transformations and activities result
in an overall increase in disorder, or in simpler terms, things break!
That is why perpetual motion machines are impossible, why genetic
mistakes occur as information is transferred from generation to
generation, and why signals traveling through a phone lines become
muted instead of clearer. It is why houses, machinery, and even our
bodies wear out, run down, and fall apart. It takes great effort to
maintain anything in perfect order, but all you have to do is
"nothing", and it will get dirty, disorganized, and eventually reduced
to dust. Every person, every machine, every reaction, and every
molecule in the known universe is subject to this law of nature.
Try the following experiment if you wish to see the second law
of thermodynamics in action. Find a detailed picture of an animal
(such as a frog) and make a photocopy of it. Now take the copy and
use it to make another copy. Take the second copy and use it to make
a third copy. Continue this process while observing the change with
each copy. The second law of thermodynamics predicts that something
will get lost with each copy. It would be a contradiction of the
second law of thermodynamics for the picture of the frog to gain
clarity, add new features, and be slowly transformed into another
creature of greater complexity. By the hundredth "generation", not
only will nothing new have developed,... but the picture will have
degenerated to the point that the frog will be hard to recognize as a
frog. We can observe similar mistakes occuring as biological life
makes copies of itself. These mistakes never result in new types of
creatures.

[The following two paragraphs sit beside an ICR drawing
of a jet being assembled by a tornado. It is labeled:
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged
in this way is comparable with the change that ``a
tornado sweeping through a junk-lard might assemble a
Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'' - Sir Fred
Hoyle." -CS]

Evolutionists try to circumvent this law by showing that in
an "open system" (someplace where there is movement of energy to or
from an outside source) complexity can increase. They point to a
seed becoming a full grown tree as an example of increasing complexity.
However, closer examination reveals that the seed starts with the
necessary characteristics (or inherent information) to make this
transformation. Stated in another way, since the information is
already contained in the seed...there is no increase in complexity or
order as it grows - just a change in form. This example is a side
track of the real issue and does not begin to explain how the seed
developed. A graphic example of an "open system" is a tornado
sweeping through a town where the town constitutes the open system
and the tornado is the outside energy source. There is abundant
available energy and the tornado is carrying sufficient raw materials
(i.e. boards, plaster, asphalt, and other misc. rubble). Why is the
end result not improved houses, repaired pot holes, new structures?
Obviously even in an "open system", there must be more than raw
materials and energy before a local increase in order is possible.
There must also be an ordering mechanism and an energy conversion
mechanism.
Now let's return our focus to the supposed origin and upward
development of life. What is the ordering mechanism which caused
chemicals to just "come together" to form the first living cell? What
caused simple cells to develop into complex multi-cellular structures?
How could complex structured plants and animals have developed?
Neither natural selection nor mutations provide a plausible ordering
or energy conversion mechanism. How could an open system explain the
advancement of life and increasing complexity as proposed by evolution?
The entire concept of macro-evolution is in conflict with the
universally accepted second law of thermodynamics. Either evolution
or the second law of thermodynamics must be wrong! One has been
confirmed by experimental observation and repeatable experimentation,
the other is based on faith and circumstantial evidence. Which do
you chose to believe?
As you search for the truth, consider which explanation for
life's origin is most logical...creation, which acknowledges the
possibility of supernatural intelligence (and therefore provides the
ordering and energy conversion mechanism)...or evolution, whose most
basic assumptions eliminate the possibility of outside intelligence
(and therefore relies on faith that the second law of thermodynamics
either does not apply or was somehow circumvented). I believe this
most basic law of science clearly points to creation as the correct
answer to the question - where did we come from?

Which concludes that the second law of thermodynamics can be deduced from the reversible laws by strict deductive reasoning after a quick and yet careful review over the two laws of thermodynamics and in proving that the website of the author you copy off most have been dead for quite sometimes.

It's physically impossible for you to lick your elbow when intact to your miserable body.