What in the-!?! 
Why does no-one understand that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SNOWFLAKES!!!
Because you are so astonishingly bad at making your point perhaps.
The "trap" I was referring to is that you people laugh at us creationists for believing that it is mathematically practically impossible for life-forms to evolve at all, much less multiple times, but then you go on to say that
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.
So, which is more complex: a snowflake or a living organism?
You know when I wrote that I wondered if you would totally misunderstand.
Please read this very carefully. Under normal conditions the chances of two snowflakes having the same exact molecular structure as another is almost zero, but the chances of
A snowflake forming is VERY LIKELY. Can you honestly not see the difference?
You can make your own homemade ice crystals.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/project/project.htmYou can make your own sugar crystals:
http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/canopy/2525/crystals/You can watch these crystals grow right in front of you. Now please try and understand the following because it applies both to snowflakes and to your terrible argument....
If you perform these experiments....
.... the chances of A crystal forming is VERY LIKELY.
.... BUT the chances of repeating the experiment and getting a crystal that is exactly the same is almost ZERO. Cant you see the difference?
In case you don't want to read that, it essentially means that while the chances of, say, amino acids forming from chemicals is acceptably high,
Yet the organic amino acids have been shown to form (like ice crystals) consistently in experiments for many years now. What we know is that these organic amino acids will form given the right circumstances.
that probability combined with the probability of an amino acid then becoming a protein, etc, etc, means that the living organism will definitely never evolve.
Once again, abiogeneiss has practically nothing to do with evolution theory in the same way as atomic theory has nothing to do with the Big Bang. You guys say that Evolution is flawed because you need life to begin with, but thats the same thing with atomic theory not caring where atoms come from or how Pasteurs Germ theory doesnt address where microbes come from.
This is because you must multiply all the probabilities of all the steps. (e.g. .25% x .25% = .125% chance)
You dont know anything about abiogenesis to state its a mathematical impossibilty. You cant even understand the ridiculousness of this snowflake nonsence you brought up.
And BY THE WAY:
Abiogenesis is just spontaneous generation repackaged!!!
No it isnt. While that article has inappropriately called abiogenesis spontaneous generation, it still makes the dictinction between Pasteus work and modern abiogenesis which they recognise as very different. Spontaneus Generation and abiogenesis are totally different things, as long as you continue to pretend otherwise it only shows how vacuous your position is.
