What complext structures are formed because of a hurricane? Please be
specific.
The hurricane itself!
How do you know the process which forms a snowflake isn't designed as
well. Please be specific. How is the outside structure (not the chemistry)
or morphological design complex? Please be specific.
There is no evidence of design. Snowflakes don't carry little signs saying "we were designed!" Ice crystalizes and forms because of the molecular structure of water.
Ice crystals formed in the appropriate conditions can often be thin and flat. These planar crystals may be simple hexagons, or if the
supersaturation is high enough, develop branches and dendritic (fern-like) features and have six approximately identical arms, as per the iconic 'snowflake' popularised by
Wilson Bentley. The 6-fold symmetry arises from the hexagonal
crystal structure of
ordinary ice, the branch formation is produced by unstable growth, with deposition occurring preferentially near the tips of branches.
[1]
The shape of the snowflake is determined broadly by the temperature and humidity at which it forms.
[3] Rarely, at a temperature of around −2 °C (28 °F), snowflakes can form in threefold symmetry triangular snowflakes.
[4] The most common snow particles are visibly irregular, although near-perfect snowflakes may be more common in pictures because they are more visually appealing.
Planar crystals (thin and flat) grow in air between 0 °C (32 °F) and −3 °C (27 °F). Between −3 °C (27 °F) and −8 °C (18 °F), the crystals will form needles or hollow columns or prisms (long thin pencil-like shapes). From −8 °C (18 °F) to −22 °C (−8 °F) the habit goes back to plate-like, often with branched or dendritic features. Note that the maximum difference in vapour pressure between liquid and ice is at about −15 °C (5 °F) where crystals grow most rapidly at the expense of the liquid droplets. At temperatures below −22 °C (−8 °F), the crystal habit again becomes column-like, although many more complex habits also form such as side-planes, bullet-rosettes and also planar types depending on the conditions and ice nuclei.
[5][6][7]
Interestingly, if a crystal has started forming in a column growth regime, say at around −5 °C (23 °F), and then falls into the warmer plate-like regime, then plate or dendritic crystals sprout at the end of the column, producing so called 'capped columns'.
[3]
There is a widely held belief that no two snowflakes are alike. Strictly speaking, it is extremely unlikely for any two
macroscopic objects in the universe to contain an identical molecular structure; but there are, nonetheless, no known scientific laws that prevent it. In a more pragmatic sense, it's more likelyalbeit not much morethat two snowflakes are virtually identical if their environments were similar enough, either because they grew very near one another, or simply by chance. The
American Meteorological Society has reported that matching snow crystals were discovered in Wisconsin in 1988 by Nancy Knight of the
National Center for Atmospheric Research.
[8] The crystals were not flakes in the usual sense but rather hollow
hexagonal prisms.
Science was moving forward under the banner of theism long before
Darwin/Wallace/Huxley. Absolute knowledge of a Creator (based on
evidence you are not listing) is independent of science moving forward.
What evidence do we have for a creator outside the Bible that isn't anything but arguments from personal incredulity, or other logical fallacies? In all actuality, science was impeded by the Church and although many important scientists were religious and many important scientists are still religious.
Please note that you are discribing "natural" based on empirical determination,
but you have not substantiated how you know the empirical determination
is not based on an order that is dependent on the supernatural.
Because there is no reason to assume otherwise. You have not substantiated how you know it is based on the supernatural.
So let's start with a basic question: "How do you know "natural" anything
exists independent of supernatural cause? Or even supernatural sustaining
such emperical processes of order? Please be specific on how you know this.
Because anything of the supernatural cannot be reliably tested, observed, or verified. An important aspect in any realm of science is if the subject being tested can be falsified. In other words, if we were able to somehow create an experiment to test for God, the result has to be falsifiable. I'm sure you wouldn't want God to be scientifically shown not to exist, do you? Supernatural beings cannot be verified or falsified because they exist beyond the realm of the natural which is what science is based in.
Please understand that your starting point is assuming "natural" and that
"emperical determination" is also somehow "natural" and independent of
supernatural cause, or supernatural sustaining order. How do you know
this?
See above.
But how do you know that natural even exists apart from the supernatural?
Please be specific.
Because there is no evidence to assume otherwise. Whatever supernatural beings exist out there they refuse to be seen or verified by science. There are no elves, trolls, gnomes, unicorns, etc.
There is clearly a difference between testing something, and supernatural
implication. Supernatural implication that is based on scientific evidence
and scientific testing is clearly NOT an appeal to ignorance, when the
claim is that it is falsifiable. If someone is claiming supernatural implication
based on repeated scientific observation, that is not an appeal to ignorance.
Please give me a paper where a scientist claims supernatural implications based on repeated scientific observation that isn't based on personal incredulity. Ex: "This is so complex and I have a hard time understanding it, therefore Goddidit."
It is actually dishonest of opposing arguments to claim that it is. Only
one side is claiming ignorance and that they do not know. The clear
conclusion based on uniform and repeated experience is that information
has an intelligent source (just one example).
What information has an intelligent source?
And I can point to distinct species in the fossil record and missing
links. The stand off won't work. We have to first go back and examine
starting points, before we approach the inductions.
Yes, they are distinct species but they still show a transition. We have hundreds of examples of transitional fossils ranging from the large "leaps" of fish-amphibian, reptile-mammal, dinosaur-bird, land mammal-whale etc to the smaller transitions of cat-saber toothed cat, Hyracotherium-modern horse, etc.
Don't forget, evolution started from Creationist Christians seeing things in the world that contradicted what the church taught. They were intellectually honest and accepted the conclusions to their work. Honest scientists have to accept the results to their work even if it goes against what they predicted would happen. Anyone who fakes their work is quickly found out when others repeat their experiments!
First, how do you know the world is "natural" and independent of the
supernatural??? Second, what about the alleged arguments that
deduction is used for both "information" and the formation of "nano
factories" (living cells). You can't make assertions without dealing
with opposing arguments basic premises.
This has already been discussed.
Clearly, this is a strawman because of uniform and repeated experience
with these mechanism/laws that are testable and observable.
What?!
That is quite different from universal common descent. For the record,
I never said "induction" always leads to error. I said that certain systems
use induction that leads to error (an in this case it would be the interpretation
of evidence based on induction which can lead to error-- particularly
on origins).
Induction is a good thing when it is testable and observable.
And Creationism is testable and all the tests have been falsified. Any supernatural events or beings will never be testable or reliably observed until they decide to stop being supernatural.
