Time + Entropy = Evolution Not Possible

"Evolutionists use a variety of imaginative analogies to make the spontaneous generation of life seem plausible. 

One of the more familiar is the typing monkeys scenario, also known as the infinite monkey theorem. It proposes that hordes of monkeys, randomly typing on typewriters with unlimited supplies of ink, time, and paper, can eventually produce a work of Shakespeare.

Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith once clarified, the typing monkeys scenario is a false analogy. Forgetting that the monkeys will die of hunger, and ignoring the problem of sourcing unlimited paper, and omitting the inevitability of typewriter keys being ground to powder long before anything that appears intelligent can be accidently typed—the typewriters themselves must use “biochemical entropy ink,” an ink destined to disappear over time.

One such reason is entropy—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—which is the universal tendency in the real world toward a decrease in order and complexity. 

Entropy won’t go away, no matter how desperately evolutionary imaginations wish it to.
Entropy ensures that infinite time is the destroyer of accidental biomolecules, not a “savior” that preserves and then builds them from simple to complex.

Thus, eons of time guarantee that the simian keypunchers can never type out Hamlet—the imagined luck is “not to be.” 

Time plus entropy prevents the spontaneous generation of life and any hope of evolution. Getting to the real truth about origins requires opening and reading the pages of Genesis."
ICR
For by Him were all things created, 

that are in heaven, and that are in earth, 

visible and invisible,...
Colossians 1:16

Did the Universe have a beginning?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 

and the Word was God. 

 He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3

"..... all secular origins models have to answer this question:

Q: Did the Universe have a beginning?

There are only two possible answers to this: yes, or no.

And it turns out that whichever way a (secular) model answers it, it has to violate physics somehow.
---If the model says “yes,” then it violates certain laws of physics.
---If the model says “no,” then it violates certain other laws of physics.

The only origins model which can be consistent with all the laws of physics is one that affirms a supernatural Creator, who created the Universe and who determined the laws under which it operates.

First of all, we must clarify what “yes” actually means. If the Universe really had a beginning, then before it began, there was nothing. There was absolutely nothing: there was no matter, no

energy, no space, no time… nothing.
Problem: this means that when the Universe began, something came from nothing. And a law of physics forbids this.
This fundamental law is often known as the Conservation of Mass-Energy. It says that the total amount of matter and energy that exists can never change. The relative amounts of each can shift back and forth, but the total combined amount is fixed and unchanging.

....physics doesn’t allow the “no” answer, because a fundamental law of physics—known as the second law of thermodynamics—shows that our Universe cannot be eternally old. 

In other words, 

our Universe must have had a beginning."

C.A.