Wyrdsmyth

I think just by looking at snowflakes we can infer that they must have a designer. Look how structured and beautiful they are. And each one is unique. Obviously, this is evidence that each one is individually designed and assembled by a higher intelligence with a developed aesthetic sense. At any rate, this makes much more sense that thinking that blind, dumb random forces of nature assembled them.

I think the best hypothesis is that supernatural, highly intelligent "fairies" or "spirits" living in the clouds must assemble the snowflakes. I've never seen them, but they must exist. As I've logically proven above, SOME intelligence must exist to produce snowflakes. Snowflakes are evidence nature is not "dumb and blind and random." We may not be able to see the fairies, but I think we all deep down know they are there. Plus, I have some old Irish relatives who believe in leprechauns, and they have a lot of old stories about elves, fairies, sprites and so forth, passed down from generation to generation. There has to be something to all of that. The fact that there are so many of these old stories leads me to think not all of them can be made-up. The sheer number of them adds to their credibility. And they haven't just been told about in Ireland, but in many other lands as well. There has to be something to these stories of little sprites and nature spirits... and it only makes sense to think that they are the intelligent designers behind such 'natural' phenomena as snowflake complexity.

If you don't believe in the winter fairies who make snowflakes in the clouds, ask yourself this: Is it because you don't want to believe in them?

[Note: I'm not claiming that snowflakes have information encoded in them, but rather that we an can infer a designer due to their complexity, beauty, and uniqueness].

butswana

Didn't you see the Rankin & Bass special "Jack Frost"? A little fat guy makes all the snowflakes with a pair of magic scissors.

Principia

LOL,

I wonder if all the ARN fairy-bashers will come flooding back?

SC, who believes nonetheless, that any snowflake contains information that directs its growth.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

katlynnhow

Wyrd,

May I have your permission to reproduce this on another board, giving you full and proper credit, of course?

Wyrdsmyth

katlynnhow,

Of course! You have my permission. And thanks for asking for permission! Just out of curiosity, which board do you want to post this on?

katlynnhow

A Creation vs. Evolution board on IWON. And thanks!!!

Wyrdsmyth

How did that discussion on the IWON board turn out?

Joe Nobody

Sorry to rain on the parade folks.

How subjectively determined aesthetic qualities delineate the necessity of a Designer is not addressed. That "prettyness" necessarily implies a Designer is assumed rather than demonstrated. The Grand Canyon (GC) is a beautiful sight to behold. Its breath-taking scenery is attested to by all the tourists it draws each year. However, it was formed through naturalistic processes.

The majesty and sheer beauty of the night-time sky invokes feelings of adoration in me. I get a special feeling when gazing up on a dark night with either a new, waxing, or waning cresent moon that proves difficult to convey accurately with words. But I think its highly illogical to use this as a logical argument in order to demonstrate that the illusion we call the nighttime sky was designed by a Designer. Believers looking at the sky as the handiwork of God is fine to me. If it helps to edify and bring a person into a more spiritual and personal contact with the object of their devotion, who am I to knock them? But to appeal to the asthestic beaty of an object as evidence for a Desinger, I think, is to commit the ad hoc fallacy. The GC example mentioned above delineates this fact quite well in my opinion. In an effort to sum up:

Case One: Believer to Believer where common assumptions are shared.

Believer1 : Man, the complexity of God's created world leaves me in awe!
Believer2 : Yeah, the vastness, beatuy and complexity of the created universe attest to God's power and personal nature.

Fine! Knock yourself out.

Case Two: Believer to Non-Believer where common assumptions are not shared.

Believer : The "prettyness" off the world proves the necessity of a Designer!

Not Fine!

We often hear the claim that no two snowflakes are alike. While this is true deep down at a molecular level, to the naked eye and even with only slight magnification, snowflakes fall into distinct classes and some may look alike. The Intertnational Classification System of snow and ice forms lists these typed: Plates, Stellar Crystals, Columns, Needles, Spatial Dendrites, Capped Columns, Itrregular Particles, Graupel, Ice Pellets and Hail (Meteorology, p 190, Danielson, Levin, Abrams). I've collected snowflakes on microscope slides before. I've had entire plates composed of needles and some of them do look alike. Don't get me wrong, snowflakes come in vast arrays of shapes and sizes but I don't think its accurate to say each one of them unique unless we mean deep down at a decently magnified level. Joe Nobody does not belive this is how Joe Public generally uses the term so its misleading.

I could probably find a bunch of rocks that look alike ass do some snowflakes. Deep down their structure may be different. Would they all be unique and individially desinged as well?

Amusing but I'd trade in the winter-fairy explanation for the Bergeron process. The saturation vapor pressure is lower over ice than it is over supercooled water at -10 degrees celcius.

No. I lack belief in winter fairies because there is no evidence of their existence.

Continuing this train of though what couldn't require a designer?

I know that was a satire and maybe some design views espoused are a few hobbits short a Shire as the Winter-Fairy synthesis portays them but I've read stuff on design and I can't recall informed people arguing that the "prettyness" or that the different molecular makeup of various objects neccessarily implies a Designer in the manner that is suggested. Behe in Darwin's Black Box argues for irreducible complexity of certian systems. Whether he does so accurately or not is irrelevant. That is not the same as mere complexity. Some who might say the complexity of the eye requires a Designer probably don't do so merely because it appears complex, but because they feel naturalistic processes--namely evolution can not account for such things. I understand this was a satire but I think in the process you did a great injustice to design arguments. Unless of course I have just been fortunate enough to come across the "better" material on the subject. Even if that is the case, it appears that the weakest strand was subjected to mockery and ridicule. All in all, this satire classifies as a straw man argument to me.

Joe Nobody

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Joe Nobody ]</p>

Godless Dave

Pagans in Ireland were executed by Christians for believing in fairies. No one would let themself be killed for a lie. So the fairies must exist.

pangloss

You said it, oh friend of Cal Thomas!