God makes snowflakes

[Upisoft]

I know why God is so busy. He is making snowflakes.

Let me start my proof.
1. If the specified complexity exists then God exists. (© ID)
2. If God does not exist then the specified complexity does not exist. (Follows from 1)

So without God there is no specified complexity. Now look at a snowflake. It has a distinct 6-ray shape, but every snowflake differs from others, therefore every snowflake has its own specification. Its common 6-ray shape is basic, but when you go into the details that make the snowflakes distinct the shape is clearly complex. So we have a specified complexity. We know it cannot be created by a natural process, therefore God sits in the clouds and makes snowflakes.

 

[MARK777]

I think you have taken a step in the right direction to acknowledge that due to specified complexity of certain things rule out chance if you are honest with yourself, however to conclude that God must be sat their on a cloud making slowflakes is a step backwards again, I think I see what you are trying to do, your maybe trying to make the whole statement seem foolish by concluding that if the first statement is true, then he must have some involvement in the process.

However God says in his word that he doesnt need to prove himself to mankind as nature and our enviroment speaks of a creator, to me it is obvious that the God of the bible is indeed the same God that has made all the things we can see, for example the same numbering patterns that occur in nature also cross over to biblical numbering systems which God uses in his word to explain certain things.

 

[automan]

I know why God is so busy. He is making snowflakes.

Let me start my proof.
1. If the specified complexity exists then God exists. (© ID)
2. If God does not exist then the specified complexity does not exist. (Follows from 1)

So without God there is no specified complexity. Now look at a snowflake. It has a distinct 6-ray shape, but every snowflake differs from others, therefore every snowflake has its own specification. Its common 6-ray shape is basic, but when you go into the details that make the snowflakes distinct the shape is clearly complex. So we have a specified complexity. We know it cannot be created by a natural process, therefore God sits in the clouds and makes snowflakes.

God also makes butterflies, bluebells, puppies and kittens, also big green apples for making apple pie,
God does not make syphilis, leprosy or any of the nasty things, the Devil makes all of the bad people and the bad things,
God invented basketball and baseball and all of the other good games, in fact anything nice God made
and anything that we don't like or agree with the Devil made.
And thanks again God for making me such a nice person.

 

[Impaler]

Aint God swell. He won't fix the appendix but he'll go around giving every snowflake a cool, unique, geometric pattern that we can't see with the naked eye.

 

[FishFace]

I think you have taken a step in the right direction to acknowledge that due to specified complexity of certain things rule out chance if you are honest with yourself, however to conclude that God must be sat their on a cloud making slowflakes is a step backwards again, I think I see what you are trying to do, your maybe trying to make the whole statement seem foolish by concluding that if the first statement is true, then he must have some involvement in the process.

However God says in his word that he doesnt need to prove himself to mankind as nature and our enviroment speaks of a creator, to me it is obvious that the God of the bible is indeed the same God that has made all the things we can see, for example the same numbering patterns that occur in nature also cross over to biblical numbering systems which God uses in his word to explain certain things.

The argument is reductio ad absurdum and not a bad one either. It is analagous to the ID argument, but in this case, we know exactly how snowflakes are produced in clouds, and it doesn't require God.
Thus, the argument (which is the same form as the ID argument) produces a false conclusion, so either the premises must be false or the argument invalid. In this case the premise, "specified complexity --> God" is false. This premise is shared by ID, so ID is also an unsound argument.

 

[MARK777]

God also makes butterflies, bluebells, puppies and kittens, also big green apples for making apple pie,
God does not make syphilis, leprosy or any of the nasty things, the Devil makes all of the bad people and the bad things,
God invented basketball and baseball and all of the other good games, in fact anything nice God made
and anything that we don't like or agree with the Devil made.
And thanks again God for making me such a nice person.

hehe, the age old good versus bad, anything good = God, anything bad = devil conundrum, this has been used as a get out clause for many people who support God as being the creator of all (exept things that are bad)

Although from what I understand the devil cannot create anything, only corrupt that which God has already made, just look at lifestyle now compaired to how it was say 100 years ago, yeah technology is better and lifestyle is easier, but things that were concidered bad years ago are now concidered okay.

take sex for example, I dont think anyone can say that sex has not been currupted with the extremes that it goes to now, and the different kinds of perversions that have manifest, marriage has lost its meaning, religion has been corrupted to the point where people of the same suposed faith are fighting each other and even killing, and their are that many different beleif systems that people just conclude that they all must be rubblish.

it makes me laugh when people blame God for bad things, he has given us perfect rules to follow and most people brush it off and continue to live their Sinful, lustful lives and wonder why things are such a mess, hes warned us time and time again throughout the ages that if people go outside of the original design then curruption will prevail, and has given perfect solutions for these problems.

See the other conundrum,

1) God gives man freewill, God gives man rules to follow, man sticks 2 fingers up at God and says, I know better, I will go my own way, corruption prevail, man turns back to God and says, look what you have done.

2) God doesnt give man freewill, man has to follow rules by their own nature, but is still able to think, one day man thinks, I dont know whether these rules that God has given me are perfect, I think I can do better, or its not fair that we dont have 100% freewill, man rebells against God, back to 1)

Dont you think the reason why we have 100% freewill now is so we can see Gods way versus mans way, and make us all conclude that we do indeed need him, in the future human history will be the perfect example that mankind needs God, just by looking at the mess we make on our own and then blaming him, things havent changed since the days of Adam when he blamed the woman.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Time for the Ryal Kane ID Challenge.

Can any supporter of ID please give me an example of something in the universe that they believe was NOT designed, so we can make a comparrison.

 

[Upisoft]

I think you have taken a step in the right direction to acknowledge that due to specified complexity of certain things rule out chance if you are honest with yourself, however to conclude that God must be sat their on a cloud making slowflakes is a step backwards again, I think I see what you are trying to do, your maybe trying to make the whole statement seem foolish by concluding that if the first statement is true, then he must have some involvement in the process.

Right direction? Logic can be right or wrong, but has no direction. Either ID claims foolish things or I has wrong logic. Then, prove me wrong.

 

[Upisoft]

God also makes butterflies, bluebells, puppies and kittens, also big green apples for making apple pie,
God does not make syphilis, leprosy or any of the nasty things, the Devil makes all of the bad people and the bad things,
God invented basketball and baseball and all of the other good games, in fact anything nice God made
and anything that we don't like or agree with the Devil made.
And thanks again God for making me such a nice person.

Allegations!

 

[RedAndy]

However God says in his word that he doesnt need to prove himself to mankind as nature and our enviroment speaks of a creator, to me it is obvious that the God of the bible is indeed the same God that has made all the things we can see, for example the same numbering patterns that occur in nature also cross over to biblical numbering systems which God uses in his word to explain certain things.

Your profile says you're an OEC, Mark, so this doesn't necessarily apply to you, but just yesterday I was talking to a Young-Earth Creationist street preacher who was suggesting that "nature and our environment" is evidence of God's Creation.

"That may be the case," I said to him, "but as a Young-Earth Creationist, you're telling me that we can safely ignore any evidence from nature if it contradicts what is said in the Bible. Nature tells us that the earth is four and a half billion years old, but because the Bible says it's less than 10,000 years old, nature must be wrong. So how do you interpret nature as being evidence for Creation if it's apparently wrong in places?"

My point is that Creationists who suggest that nature is evidence for creation are just picking and choosing those bits of nature that agree with their preconceived worldview. That's not use of evidence at all - it's just an example of Morton's Demon.

 

[MARK777]

Your profile says you're an OEC, Mark, so this doesn't necessarily apply to you, but just yesterday I was talking to a Young-Earth Creationist street preacher who was suggesting that "nature and our environment" is evidence of God's Creation.

That may be the case," I said to him, "but as a Young-Earth Creationist, you're telling me that we can safely ignore any evidence from nature if it contradicts what is said in the Bible. Nature tells us that the earth is four and a half billion years old, but because the Bible says it's less than 10,000 years old, nature must be wrong. So how do you interpret nature as being evidence for Creation if it's apparently wrong in places?"

My point is that Creationists who suggest that nature is evidence for creation are just picking and choosing those bits of nature that agree with their preconceived worldview. That's not use of evidence at all - it's just an example of Morton's Demon.

Hi, the way I understand the earth being older than what young Earth creationists believe is actually quiet simple, it only becomes clear when you study from the original language however.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here it says God created the heavens and the Earth, throughout the scripture it is evident that everything that God creates is perfect and without fault to start.

This is what I understand as the Gap period.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

in Gen 1:2 their is a mistranslation with a word, namely "was" the actual greek word is {haw-yaw #1961} Come to pass, become, cause, pertain, accomplish.

So from 1:1 we see God created the heavens and the Earth, and in 1:2 the Earth "became" waste and void, which suggests that something happened to the Earth between these times, otherwise why would God create something without form and all other things with form, we have to follow the consistency of the bible and as such this is the only rational explanation for this.

Also the bible does not give specific times for a beginning or end, rather it gives accounts of what happened and why, the only reason the question of specific dates and times are relevant now is because of the controversy between what science has to say versus the bible, the problem is science works by the use of evidence, and the bible is an account of mans relationship with their creator, their fall and the work done from the creators perspective to reconcile mankind back to him.

The question I had for a long time was, if God could produce evidence then why not? this bugged me for a long time then it hit me one day, God doesn't want to prove himself, if he did prove himself without a doubt than people would follow him for all the wrong reasons, look at it this way, if you written something to help another creation lower than yourself, would you feel the need to prove yourself or would you rather them hear what you have written and respond in a respectful way, no self help book in the world first gives an account and proof of the persons existance just so people will read and apply what is written, so why must it be any different for the creator, this appears to be another excuse to disregard what is written, and now with science been the new big thing which claims will have all the answers eventually it has become essential.

 

[Valkhorn]

I agree. I mean in one snowstorm there could be trillions and trillions of snowflakes! Some accounts place snowstorms as putting out quadrillions of snowflakes! That would mean for a single snowflake to occur by chance would be a 1 in 10^12 probability. But there are 10 snowstorms per year, making it a 1 in 10^13 probability at the very least.

So if you see a snowflake fall on your sleeve you must realize that it is unique. The odds for that snowflake to have formed randomly that way were 1 in 10^13 for that year. Therefore we can conclude that since the odds are so low for snowflakes to form like that by random chance that they have to be intelligently designed!!!!!!!

 

[TurtleTamer]

I agree. I mean in one snowstorm there could be trillions and trillions of snowflakes! Some accounts place snowstorms as putting out quadrillions of snowflakes! That would mean for a single snowflake to occur by chance would be a 1 in 10^12 probability. But there are 10 snowstorms per year, making it a 1 in 10^13 probability at the very least.

So if you see a snowflake fall on your sleeve you must realize that it is unique. The odds for that snowflake to have formed randomly that way were 1 in 10^13 for that year. Therefore we can conclude that since the odds are so low for snowflakes to form like that by random chance that they have to be intelligently designed!!!!!!!

That's nothing. Shuffle a deck of cards and you get one of 8x10^67 equally likely configurations. Thus, everytime anyone plays a card game, they prove God exists and is making the cards appear in whatever order they appear in.

Either that or the dealer is ALWAYS cheating.

 

[Upisoft]

Either that or the dealer is ALWAYS cheating.

That's for sure! And it explains the fact that no winning system actually works. Ask gamblers.

 

[Valkhorn]

That's for sure! And it explains the fact that no winning system actually works. Ask gamblers.

They have shows every now and then about how some gamblers cheated. It's pretty amazing the lengths they have gone to to win - and nearly all of them get caught because they get too greedy with it.

 

[MARK777]

That's nothing. Shuffle a deck of cards and you get one of 8x10^67 equally likely configurations. Thus, everytime anyone plays a card game, they prove God exists and is making the cards appear in whatever order they appear in.

Either that or the dealer is ALWAYS cheating.

Yeah and apparently if you apply the same logic to 10,000 packs of cards without jokers.

First you split the deck so its all reds, 26 cards per pack.

next you do is shuffle all the decks for an hour, then you take 10 cards from each pack and stack them face down in 1 pile, continue this until all 260,000 cards are face down and randomly stacked, next you turn over each card, and make note of the cards.

Next you assign letters to each card starting hearts, lowest being A (2H=A) and so on until you get the whole alphabet.

Then you apply this formula to the randomly generated cards, and it apparently describes in full detail the theory of Evolution, thus disproving that there is a God, and that, infact, through random occurance, intelligence can be formed....

 

[Upisoft]

Yeah and apparently if you apply the same logic to 10,000 packs of cards without jokers.

First you split the deck so its all reds, 26 cards per pack.

next you do is shuffle all the decks for an hour, then you take 10 cards from each pack and stack them face down in 1 pile, continue this until all 260,000 cards are face down and randomly stacked, next you turn over each card, and make note of the cards.

Next you assign letters to each card starting hearts, lowest being A (2H=A) and so on until you get the whole alphabet.

Then you apply this formula to the randomly generated cards, and it apparently describes in full detail the theory of Evolution, thus disproving that there is a God, and that, infact, through random occurance, intelligence can be formed....

If that happens it will prove existence of God.