I see. Could it be possible that there was an implication that God meant spiritual death as well as physical death? Even though it wasn't explicitly stated that Adam and Eve died spiritually, could it be implied that they did die spiritually (i.e. their souls went to Sheol [abode of the dead in Hebrew] when they died physically?)

And I also understand my error in explanation about Adam lying to God. I didn't mean lying as in Adam speaking falsely, I meant that Adam avoided the responsibility of eating the fruit. Adam blamed Eve for him eating the fruit, and Eve blamed the Devil for telling her to eat the fruit. Adam and Eve didn't lie about their actions, they lied about who was at fault for disobeying God (by eating the fruit). Both Adam and Eve were at fault for eating the fruit, but they blamed the devil for their actions. I understand that this isn't exactly lying, but it gets the point across that Adam didn't understand that he was disobeying God by obeying the devil (which is the main idea of the chapter).

My point is that Genesis speaks only of "physical death." It does not speak of "spiritual death." To claim that God was warning Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit or they would die a "spiritual death" is—as best I know—to introduce a concept into Genesis that is not there.

Also, it does not say in Genesis that Adam lied to God. You were in error.

It is also mentioned in Genesis 5:5 that Adam died physically.

but Adam lies to God and says he didn't, then blames Eve . . . . This was their second mistake; lying about disobeying God and not asking for forgiveness.

Neither Adam nor Eve lies:

Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat The man replied, “The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.”

Also, you say the following:

This is the kind of death that God had warned them about; a spiritual death.

Can you demonstrate that for the author(s) of Genesis, there are two concepts of death, spiritual and physical? I am by no means an expert in biblical Hebrew, but I seriously doubt that the idea of "spiritual death" could even have been expressed in Genesis, let alone understood by Adam and Eve as they are described to us.

Please bear with me this explanation of why Adam and Eve were not created perfect.

There is nothing in he Bible that says that Adam and Eve were perfect. It does say that "God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good", but this does not mean that God made Adam and Eve perfect. He created them, then gave them free will, and by giving them free will God gave them the ability to obey Him or not to obey Him.

God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat the fruit of the Forbidden Tree, they would die. The serpent (Satan) tempts Eve in the garden by telling her that eating the fruit of the forbidden tree wouldn't kill her, even though God said it would kill her. Eve eats of the fruit and gives some to Adam, and they don't die physically. This was their first mistake; disobeying God. God tests Adam by asking him if he had eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree, to see if he would tell the truth and ask for forgiveness, but Adam lies to God and says he didn't, then blames Eve, who then blames the serpent. This was their second mistake; lying about disobeying God and not asking for forgiveness.

By disobeying God and lying to Him Adam and Eve die spiritually (sin). This is the kind of death that God had warned them about; a spiritual death. God took them out of the garden, causing them to no longer be in constant communion with Him (i.e. constantly and perpetually in a state of worship) and be susceptible to death (There is an implication that Adam and Eve could never die [spiritually or physically] in the garden as long as they were in communion with God).

I hope a least something in here helps with your question! :)

Entropy is necessary for all of the reasons I already stated, i.e., for chemical reactions to move forward in time rather than simply slipping backward and forward eternally without any friction between them.

Here's another way to think of things if one is a theist and considers Entropy in light of the God of the Bible:

According to the Bible, God made the stars on the fourth day of creation. But even more remarkable is the fact that He is creating them still, though the latter miracle is considered not worth mentioning by any of the Bibleʼs authors. (I wonder why? The creation of new stars in enormous stellar nurseries is being chronicled continually in magazines and journals like Astronomy, Sky & Telescope and The Astrophysical Journal, just to name a few.)

And God is still creating new planets (that continue to form out of rings of matter circling stars--see the above mentioned magazines).

And God is still fusing simple hydrogen atoms together inside stars to create other elements with greater proton and electron numbers (the heaviest known elements are created during super nova explosions of stars).

And God is still creating large multi-cellular organisms out of a single cell that keeps dividing over and over by a process called embryogenesis.

And God is still transforming inorganic substances into organic ones, because there are tiny microorganisms that live by taking in nothing but water and inorganic molecules and turning them into more members of their own species. I am speaking of microorganisms that live directly on minerals, including plants that live on minerals and sunlight. Thatʼs where the “chain of life” begins, with the inorganic world and the organisms that ingest inorganic substances, and next comes all the forms of life that live on those organisms and so on and so forth. In fact, if you keep in mind the entire chain of life and the way the organisms at the bottom live on inorganic substances, then God is still creating human beings out of inorganic matter (and turning inorganic oxygen molecules into “the breath of life,” every time we inhale).
Still, creationists argue that

aside from the continued creation of new stars;
aside from the continued creation of new planets;
aside from all the elements in the periodic table continually being created out of the simplest and lightest element of them all, hydrogen;
aside from the continued creation of multi-cellular organisms from a single cell via embryogenesis;
aside from the continued creation of living organisms out of inorganic matter which lay at the base of the chain of life;
aside from the fact that organisms continually increase in number as well as branch off into new species (as even creationists admit);
aside from all of that; creationists continue to claim that evolution is “prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics!”
Iʼd say that creationists are missing the forest for the trees, which continue to grow from tiny seeds; trees that become forests that continue to reach out and envelop as much of the earth as they can, and whose members continue to branch off (forgive the pun) into new species as they do so.

And none of that violates the second law of thermo-d. In fact the enormous number of animals that perish is the price paid for evolution, because life is a series of hurdles that an organism either makes it over or not, starting with conception in sexually reproducing species, then having to survive embryogenesis (half of all human zygotes donʼt survive it, which is admitted by pro-lifers as well), surviving birth, surviving childhood illnesses and infections (half of all children didnʼt live past the age of eight according to Buffon writing in the 1750s), getting past every hurdle in the way of the continuance of life from the time of conception to sexual maturity and mating. There are hurdles galore, biological, environmental, social, et al. Thatʼs what natural selection is about, the weeding out of countless zygotes, babies, children, adolescents, such that only some of them survive to produce the next generation, or they produce more offspring than others. Meanwhile not just individuals are included in the selection process, because for every species that does well, many sub-species and/or cousin species, do not do well, but instead perish over time. So that overall, the price of decay, of thermo-dynamics is paid. Yes, the evolution of new species does come at a tremendous price that is paid by nature.

atheists will insist that there was once physics laws that are unknown. so why believe in such unknown physics laws? is it because most of atheistic hypotheses, including evolution, do not work well with the current physics laws?

how would evolution goes if it goes well with the laws of entropy? evolution must favor without entropy because evolution needs energy