[Janos]

It's more than that. No two dice throws are exactly the same either. The height varies, the way the dice moved is different.

Put seriously this is beyond pathetic. We've completely demolished every single argument this guy has made and yet he still goes on about snowflakes as if proving me wrong about that will prove him completely right about every single thing we've all said in this debate.

It really won't.

It's known as moving the goalposts and after a short while it becomes painfully obvious. It is not really worth replying to because it is endless.
The other good way is to rephrase and narrow down your argument ("well show me a mongoloid demigod from outer dimensions of Hell, sent here by Shub-Nigguraht"), until you come up with so ridiculous or unprovable "rebuttal" so that a honest adversary, who is unable to call your bluff, can only surrender. X -> Y != (A[cv]X2^4)/pi -> Y

[m]

Snowflakes form according to known and measured physical rules regarding (ice) crystal formation.  Moreso, there is no physical law barring identical snowflakes; it's just highly unlikely any object in the universe will carry the same arrangement of molecules.  In both the case of snowflakes and dice there are a set of known and measured rules regarding what happens, the probabilities, etc.  The - supposed - uniqueness of snowflakes is simply a consequence of the increased complexity, much the same as getting the same result from throwing 1000 dice.

In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.

Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.

Whereas living organisms are not; they evolved multiple times.  You are saying that nonliving snowflakes are more complex than living organisms.  Thanks for falling into my nice little trap.

...Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are, I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes.

This will be fun.
-m

[Edward Bradshaw]

In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.

Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex. 

Whereas living organisms are not; they evolved multiple times.  You are saying that nonliving snowflakes are more complex than living organisms.  Thanks for falling into my nice little trap.

What on earth are you talking about?! I didnt say that at all. Sorry if we didnt say what you wanted us to say, but you cant just pretend we did anyway just because you didnt get what you wanted. 

...Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are....

You didnt read a word of what people said, did you?

You could find two snowflakes the same, but we probably wont because theres so many variables involved in how the structure forms.

Its like rolling dice. Lets say you roll 6 dice and note down what each of them says. Now roll the same 6 dice again. Chances of having the exact outcome again is much lower. Now pretend you have thousands of dice, and the object of the game is not only to get each one to get the same result as they did before but to land in the exact same place as they did before. Chances of that happening are almost impossible. This is what its like for snowflake formation. IE. The chances of two snowflakes having the same exact molecular structure are almost nill. Theres nothing mystical or supernatural about it. Its just the environment and atmosphere acting on the crystallizing ice.

I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. It is absolutely nothing like it.

Ed

[Shade]

Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are, I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes.

Finally. I was waiting for you to post exactly that. You go on about aldo and ed falling into a trap, but in fact you're the one who just walked headlong into one.

I actually don't give a damn about whether two identical snowflakes have ever existed or not; I wanted you to say exactly that because it makes perfect sense - It can't be proven and has never been observed, and as such it's silly to believe it until some kind of proof surfaces. The thing is though, if you replace "snowflake" with "god", you have exactly the same situation. It can't be proven and has never been observed, so by your own admission, believing in it is ridiculous. Thank you for cooperating, and indeed doing so far better than I could have wished for when I first planned this little trap

[Bobboau]

Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.

do you know what the term irriducably complex means?

[karajorma]

Obviously not or he wouldn't dream of suggesting that someone arguing against ID ever said it.


I think we've proved time and time again that the people who argue against ID actually understand what it is better than anyone on this board who has argued in favour of it.

[aldo_14]

Har.
You are implying that snowflakes are irreducibly complex.

Whereas living organisms are not; they evolved multiple times.  You are saying that nonliving snowflakes are more complex than living organisms.  Thanks for falling into my nice little trap.

...Of course, you will probably come up with a nice "You can't prove that no two snowflakes are alike!!" but until you show me two that are, I will sit back and laugh at you people who believe in spontaneous generation aka abiogenesis and irreducibly complex snowflakes.

This will be fun.
-m

Didn't I just explain how snowflakes aren't irreducibly complex but the consequence of multiple (relatively simple) small formative actions chained together via crystallisation processes, with sufficient random variation to -potentially- give an appearance of unique spontaneous complexity?  Ah, yes, I did.  In fact, you've managed to completely ignore what both of us said!  Kudos, such deliberate and calculated ignorance is truly had to find in modern society.

Oh, yeah, and abiogenesis isn't spontaneous but a chained theory of sequential events.  We did that bit of explanation earlier.

Perhaps you'd like to (go back and) read it this time before you sound any more of a a complete idiot?  honestly, I hope you're not representative of the educational system of your country of origin.

[Mathwiz6]

In fact, you've managed to completely ignore what both of us said!  Kudos, such deliberate and calculated ignorance is truly hard to find in modern society.

I dunno, I don't agree with that statement   

[aldo_14]

It's no usually willful & calculated, though

[Mathwiz6]

That's what the government wants you to believe....

[ZmaN]

*Sigh*

honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them

Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?

PLEEEEEASE?   

-m

In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.

Exactly...  BEcaseu everything in the universe was/is created by God.  No snowflake is the same.  Sure you might find one with the same amount of snow on it but will it be EXACTLY the same?  NO!  IT CANNOT!
THey are all made in gods image....
GO ahead, criticize me,  see if I care...

[Mathwiz6]

No god is the same either...

Anyway, god seems to be pretty inefficient. Let's replace Him, with a Her 

*reads "And Eternity"*

Anyway, two snowflakes can be the same. It's just improbable. Though with the amount of snowflakes that have fallen...

But asking us to prove that is like us saying "If your god is so powerful, give us a provable demonstration of His Power"

*Reads "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy"*

*watches TV*
*listens to crickets*

Oh, that's right, you can't... *reads Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy*

[aldo_14]

*Sigh*

honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them

Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?

PLEEEEEASE?   

-m

In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.

Exactly...  BEcaseu everything in the universe was/is created by God.  No snowflake is the same.  Sure you might find one with the same amount of snow on it but will it be EXACTLY the same?  NO!  IT CANNOT!
THey are all made in gods image....
GO ahead, criticize me,  see if I care...

God is a snowflake?

Sigh.

We did explain this, you know.  In depth.  The physical laws that define the formation of a snowflake do not preclude it being identical; it is just incredibly unlikely to have any combination of molecules in the universe as being identical.  In fact, you quoted the very post explaining this.  Randomness is not, may I add, any sort of symptom of divine creation; take a couple of pennies out your pocket, and you will see that each one (or maybe not see, but on a microscopic level) has differences in its surface, etc.  The same applies to brand-spanking-new pennies.  It also applies to crystals, which we can see form with our own eyes and a loadof patience (using the same principles as snowflake ice crystal formation, IIRC).

Anyways.

The root point is, uniqueness does not require 'God' or any such concept.  We can - and have - map the physical processes, test them, and explain the complexity that arises from the combination of these processes.

 I could write a 'snowflake' program that uses a series of branching algorithms to draw an increasinly complex pattern, and illustrate exactly how simple changes can add up to a very complex and seemingly unique whole.  If I could be arsed, and if I thought you'd understand it one jot.  Which, frankly, I don't think you will going by the very post I'm quoting.

(to be fair, your very last sentence indicates you have no interest in learning anything atall, and would rather stick to a preformatted set of dogmatic and rather laughable misconceptions.  I might be an aetheist/agnosticist, but I'd have thought understanding nature and the world as it works would be a rather profound and important part of understanding 'gods work' to a Christian, rather than blindly sticking to the words of your local preacher/parent/pastor/whatever)

[Kamikaze]

Exactly...  BEcaseu everything in the universe was/is created by God.  No snowflake is the same.  Sure you might find one with the same amount of snow on it but will it be EXACTLY the same?  NO!  IT CANNOT!

Umm. As he said right in that post, it *can* be. It's just highly unlikely. Learn to read.

[Mathwiz6]

The same amount of snow on it?   

Uhh... At that level, do you define the parts of a snowflake as snow?

Must... stop.. arguing... semantics....

Cannot is a strong word there laddie...

Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)

[aldo_14]

The same amount of snow on it?   

Uhh... At that level, do you define the parts of a snowflake as snow?

Must... stop.. arguing... semantics....

Cannot is a strong word there laddie...

Cannot implies certainty, and nothing is certain. (i'm prepared to argue that point)

I doubt he actually read anything me or Ed wrote.....

[Mathwiz6]

What does my post have to do with that?

I'm pretty sure no one read my first post on this thread, but it was illegible too....

Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.

[aldo_14]

What does my post have to do with that?

I'm pretty sure no one read my first post on this thread, but it was illegible too....

Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.

This bit;

The same amount of snow on it?   

Uhh... At that level, do you define the parts of a snowflake as snow?

When we've been talking (prior) about snowflakes forming from ice crystals.

[karajorma]

Although I agree, it seems everyone just states their positions, and skips anything that is too long, or too complicated, or just not compatible.

Nope. We listen to the points the creationists put across and then refute them (If they make any sense. m seldom has to be honest). If you look back you'll see that we answered all the objections Charismatic raised and showed why he was wrong on the matter.

[Flipside]

Saying that every snowflake that has ever fallen is individual is a misleading statement anyway, I've seen snowflakes that were visually identical, the difference between them was at the microscopic level.

If you look at sand you'll find that at a microscopic level, despite the basic silicon structure, even sand is unique on a crystal to crystal basis. The whole reason life is based around water, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and silicon (to a degree) is because all these structure have almost infinitely various ways of connecting to each other.  Though not truly infinite. It's a very human thing to make statements like 'All snowflakes are different', but the scientist in me always wants to answer with the question 'You've checked them all? Or did a scientist tell you that?'