Scholar8200:

Apologies to the op, I am not an expert here.
However, I see nature as the response of all Creation to the ordinances/laws set by the Creator with respect to changes in the Divine order of creation, after the fall.
If it were all energies , chaos and then order, whence the perfectly reasonable and constant laws (eg Gravity)? Who set those laws?

#sighs for goodness sake simply take a glance into the physics text book to at least understand the simple mechanisms behind these natural phenomenons.. there is no "who" needed in the process neither are these things "laws" as that of a judiciary..

(You mentioned the Goat? I believe those animals underscore the fact of a Creator! Why? If man evolved from Apes, I would have expected that Apes, NOT Goats, would have a goatee!)

You were saying?

I am not here to make any case for biological evolution though, Just used the pictures to show you just how naive the bolded words were.

these other primates also have beards just like humans contrary to your naive expectations.

It can only take great ignorance of these other primates for someone to avow that..

Nature to me is the totality of ALL and when i say ALL i mean every tiny bit of energy, every tiny bit of quarks, strings, atoms up to the humongous larger entities from within thrives these tiny bits.. Nature the totality of everything, the unification of all music.

I could say "she" to represent the tendency of nature to replicate and sum up creations but that would take an anthropomorphical tilt.

It has no plan, no goal, ever changing (whether for good or bad is a perception born out of human ideas) self sustaining, flexible and receptive to newer values in response to it's manifestations and is an extra park of weirdness. A source of chaos and at the same time a child of chaos and result..

Nature is all... Every bit, weirdness, chaos, order within or chance that thrives in unification as a whole is NATURE

plaetton:
Nature is not a distinct entity. Rather, nature is a loose generic term we use to describe the END-PRODUCTS of cosmic interactions in our celestial locality.
As such, nature encompasses all cosmic phenomena .

Since we know that all cosmic phenomena are products of chaos, it naturally follows that nature is an offspring of chaos.

Therefore, by simple deductive logic, it is scientifically obvious that Nature, a COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM, is BEGOTTEN, Refueled and continuously Maintained by the perpetual dance of mother ENERGY and father Random CHAOS.

So, nature itself, is the proof that random choas can and do create and evolve complex functional systems.

This basically answers all your questions.

But, my instincts tell me that these answers are just too simplistic for you, considering how you phrased your questions and the made-to-fit answers you're likely looking for.

In case you need more elaboration, I would be happy to oblige you.

However, I would only do so in purely scientific terms, involving complex scientific and mathematical facts ,ideas and theories .

Since no one appears to have done so, I will challenge your fancy words and make your bold stories wilt and disappear.

We do not know that all cosmic phenomena are products of chaos. Infact that is utter nonsense.

could you please scientifically and mathematically show me how orbital revolution of planetary bodies, cell replication, neuro-muscular transmission and histo-immuno recognition and numerous cycles are products of random chaos.

you'll just come out and talk nonsense and brainless people will be clapping for you.

Joshthefirst:


We do not know that all cosmic phenomena are products of chaos. Infact that is utter nonsense.

Lol.

We do, as a matter of fact, know that all cosmic phenomena are indeed underpinned by the chaotic interactions of energy and matter.

Now, understand me carefully.
I do not say that all cosmic phenomena are chaotic and are direct results of chance, but that at the most elementary level, order evolves from Chaos.

plaetton:


Lol.

We do, as a matter of fact, know that all cosmic phenomena are indeed underpinned by the chaotic interactions of energy and matter.

Now, understand me carefully.
I do not say that all cosmic phenomena are chaotic and are direct results of chance, but that at the most elementary level, order evolves from Chaos.

Go ahead and show that scientifically and mathematically then. Explain it to us how order and cyclic repeatitive uniformity evolves from chaos.

No Illusionary Speculations or stories please.

Joshthefirst:
Go ahead and show that scientifically and mathematically then. Explain it to us how order and cyclic repeatitive uniformity evolves from chaos.

No Illusionary Speculations or stories please.

Oh, there are far far to many to name.

But let me start with reintroducing , for the millionth time, to you, Uyi Iredia, Deepsight and Anony etc, SNOWFLAKES.

1. A snowflake is one of the most beautiful, complex and aesthetically pleasing creations of nature.

2. A snowflake is symmetrical, mathematically precise and incorporates 5th dimension geometry.

3. No two snowflakes are similar shape.

4. SNOWFLAKES Incorporate FRACTAL geometry in their formation.




SNOWFLAKES are formed when water molecules in the cloud freeze( a random event). Gravity acts upon them to pull them down through the earth's atmosphere ( a random chaotic event). While falling, they fall through different atmospheric temperatures and humidity ( a series of random chaotic events) .
Because they move through differing temperature and humidity regions in the atmosphere, different shapes emerge as they descend to Earth.

Because of the random chaotic flux in atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity, No Two Snowflakes are ever alike.
This is proof that each individual snowflake is formed by purely random chaotic processes that is independent of the other.

So here, we see how random uncoordinated flux in atmospheric conditions act upon random water molecules of cloud droplets in the atmosphere to create a very complex, mathematically precise, symmetrical, aesthetically pleasing and one of a kind piece of art that plays very vital roles in the ecosystem.

I chose, once again, to use snowflakes to show how random Chaos produces order, symmetry, beauty and functions in nature.

It is the simplest , the most " in your face" example.

plaetton:


Your entire argument is upside down,. as usual.

Read my earlier response to Anony's query.

Nature, no matter how beautiful or orderly it appears, is a Child of Random CHAOS.

Every seemingly orderly process in nature has Randomness and Chaos as it's underpinning determinant.

Nature is not designed.
Nature evolved.

Shouldn't that be self evident ?

You and the people who liked this have a few cranial screws loose.

plaetton:


Oh, there are far far to many to name.

But let me start with reintroducing , for the millionth time, to you, Uyi Iredia, Deepsight and Anony etc, SNOWFLAKES.

1. A snowflake is one of the most beautiful, complex and aesthetically pleasing creations of nature.

2. A snowflake is symmetrical, mathematically precise and incorporates 5th dimension geometry.

3. No two snowflakes are similar shape.

4. SNOWFLAKES Incorporate FRACTAL geometry in their formation.




SNOWFLAKES are formed when water molecules in the cloud freeze( a random event). Gravity acts upon them to pull them down through the earth's atmosphere ( a random chaotic event). While falling, they fall through different atmospheric temperatures and humidity ( a series of random chaotic events) .
Because they move through differing temperature and humidity regions in the atmosphere, different shapes emerge as they descend to Earth.

Because of the random chaotic flux in atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity, No Two Snowflakes are ever alike.
This is proof that each individual snowflake is formed by purely random chaotic processes that is independent of the other.

So here, we see how random uncoordinated flux in atmospheric conditions act upon random water molecules of cloud droplets in the atmosphere to create a very complex, mathematically precise, symmetrical, aesthetically pleasing and one of a kind piece of art that plays very vital roles in the ecosystem.

I chose, once again, to use snowflakes to show how random Chaos produces order, symmetry, beauty and function in nature.
It is the simplest , the most " in your face" example.

And for the umpteenth time I'm telling you this is crap. There is a limit to the order chasos can make. Fractals yes. Codes and machinery as seen in living systems no. Give me an example of chaos making a machine for instance. You can't because chaos is limited to making a few interesting patterns like snowflakes and sand dunes.

UyiIredia:


And for the umpteenth time I'm telling you this is crap. There is a limit to the order chasos can make. Fractals yes. Codes and machinery as seen in living systems no. Give me an example of chaos making a machine for instance. You can't because chaos is limited to making a few interesting patterns like snowflakes and sand dunes.

Lol.

Just listen to yourself.

Big laugh #1: " There is a A LIMIT to the ORDER that CHAOS can make ".
Monumentally contradictory and very hilarious.

Big laugh #2: " codes and machinery as seen in nature no ".
I doubt if you understand that statement.

Big laugh #3: " Chaos is limited to making A FEW interesting paterns like snowflakes and sand dunes".
So what makes something interesting? Is it the complexity, the symmetry, the mathematical precision , the incorporation of 5th dimension geometry, the aesthetics or its function as an important part of the ecosystem ?

Big laugh # 4: Show you an example where Chaos makes a machine , you say ?
Are you serious

Hilarious.

Well, if you understand FRACTALS and their ubiquity in nature, you wouldn't be making such laughable statements.

plaetton:


Oh, there are far far to many to name.

But let me start with reintroducing , for the millionth time, to you, Uyi Iredia, Deepsight and Anony etc, SNOWFLAKES.

1. A snowflake is one of the most beautiful, complex and aesthetically pleasing creations of nature.

2. A snowflake is symmetrical, mathematically precise and incorporates 5th dimension geometry.

3. No two snowflakes are similar shape.

4. SNOWFLAKES Incorporate FRACTAL geometry in their formation.




SNOWFLAKES are formed when water molecules in the cloud freeze( a random event). Gravity acts upon them to pull them down through the earth's atmosphere ( a random chaotic event). While falling, they fall through different atmospheric temperatures and humidity ( a series of random chaotic events) .
Because they move through differing temperature and humidity regions in the atmosphere, different shapes emerge as they descend to Earth.

Because of the random chaotic flux in atmospheric temperature, pressure and humidity, No Two Snowflakes are ever alike.
This is proof that each individual snowflake is formed by purely random chaotic processes that is independent of the other.

So here, we see how random uncoordinated flux in atmospheric conditions act upon random water molecules of cloud droplets in the atmosphere to create a very complex, mathematically precise, symmetrical, aesthetically pleasing and one of a kind piece of art that plays very vital roles in the ecosystem.

I chose, once again, to use snowflakes to show how random Chaos produces order, symmetry, beauty and functions in nature.

It is the simplest , the most " in your face" example.

How many times will you be refuted on this?

Snowflakes are not made under chaotic conditions. They are made under precise atmospheric conditions that permit their formation.

Please give a credible example and do well to scrutinize it effectively this time.






PS: It's good to know you consider 'snowflakes' to be beautiful and have an orderly structure and aesthetically pleasing effect. Mind what you say from now on, and stick to what you have subscribed to, so that I would not use your very words against you.

@Plaetton, What exactly do you mean by Chaos?

Do you mean lack of Laws?

I ask because when a snowflake is formed the laws of nature are not flouted, the laws remain consistent in forming the snowflake.

Or perhaps you mean Randomness when you say Chaos?

However even in the rolling of dice, a supposedly random event, we find that there are structures. There are certain sums that are more likely to come up more often than not. Hence Statistics.

Why would you give preeminence to Chaos (however you define it) over Order? Surely Chaos can emerge out of Order just as easily as Order can emerge out of Chaos.

To what extent are Chaos and Order just categories in our perceptual abilities? In other words, how are you sure that Chaos and Order is out there in the world, rather than in your mind? Perhaps you inability to make sense of a phenomena is what makes it Chaotic to you and when you eventually come to make sense of it you perceive it to have Order.

Are Order and Chaos just markers of your ability to grasp a phenomenon?

Joshthefirst:
How many times will you be refuted on this?

Snowflakes are not made under chaotic conditions. They are made under precise atmospheric conditions that permit their formation.

Please give a credible example and do well to scrutinize it effectively this time.


PS: It's good to know you consider 'snowflakes' to be beautiful and have an orderly structure and aesthetically pleasing effect. Mind what you say from now on, and stick to what you have subscribed to, so that I would not use your very words against you.

If snowflakes were made by nature under " precise conditions", then the outcomes would be similar in design and complexity.
But they are not.
No two snowflakes are ever exactly the same , simply because no two atmospheric conditions per time and per space are exactly the same.
The conditions are in a constant flux, random and chaotic.

PastorAIO:
@Plaetton, What exactly do you mean by Chaos?

Do you mean lack of Laws?

I ask because when a snowflake is formed the laws of nature are not flouted, the laws remain consistent in forming the snowflake.

Or perhaps you mean Randomness when you say Chaos?

However even in the rolling of dice, a supposedly random event, we find that there are structures. There are certain sums that are more likely to come up more often than not. Hence Statistics.

Why would you give preeminence to Chaos (however you define it) over Order? Surely Chaos can emerge out of Order just as easily as Order can emerge out of Chaos.

To what extent are Chaos and Order just categories in our perceptual abilities? In other words, how are you sure that Chaos and Order is out there in the world, rather than in your mind? Perhaps you inability to make sense of a phenomena is what makes it Chaotic to you and when you eventually come to make sense of it you perceive it to have Order.

Are Order and Chaos just markers of your ability to grasp a phenomenon?

Yes, Randomness is a much better word to use in this simple context.

But, at the very basic level, Chaos is what produces Randomness.

Chaos is when There are too many competing and interacting variables to discern a predictable pattern or outcome.

Take for example , the stock or currency markets.
At the most fundamental level, they are inherently chaotic, yet from a longer term perspective, we can discern repeating patterns that showcase the laws of mathematics operating with amazing consistency on human consciousness,- the stock and currency markets being aggregations oh human conscious actions.

So, once again, we see that even in repeating events or processes , in every cyclical event in nature are anchored or underpinned by Randomness and Chaos .

plaetton:


Yes, Randomness is a much better word to use in this simple context.

But, at the very basic level, Chaos is what produces Randomness.

Chaos is when There are too many competing and interacting variables to discern a predictable pattern or outcome.

Take for example , the stock or currency markets.
At the most fundamental level, they are inherently chaotic, yet from a longer term perspective, we can discern repeating patterns that showcase the laws of mathematics operating with amazing consistency on human consciousness,- the stock and currency markets being aggregations oh human conscious actions.

So, once again, we see that even in repeating events or processes , in every cyclical event in nature are anchored or underpinned by Randomness and Chaos .

Chaos is when There are too many competing and interacting variables to discern a predictable pattern or outcome.

But the laws of nature are not flouted. So there is actually Order. The problem is that you cannot discern the order. So Order and Chaos are states of the mind when observing phenomena, they are not inherent in phenomena.
What you see as chaos, someone else with another perspective may see a perfect order.

plaetton:


If snowflakes were made by nature under " precise conditions", then the outcomes would be similar in design and complexity.
But they are not.
No two snowflakes are ever exactly the same , simply because no two atmospheric conditions per time and per space are exactly the same.
The conditions are in a constant flux, random and chaotic.

But they are.
You want to make this an argument over words?

Precise does not mean the same. It means 'fitting a particular accuracy'. That two conditions are precise does not mean that said conditions are 'exact'

You see chaos where order is beautifully showcased.

That conditions are precise, does not mean that conditions are exactly the same, and said products will be replicas.

Precise conditions means that conditions are consistent and agree with each other. Without the precise atmospheric conditions snow does not form at all.

When we see precision in a process, and accuracy of products made, then we cannot call such a process chaotic.

edited

lol

simple answer is: doG did it

UyiIredia:


You and the people who liked this have a few cranial screws loose.

I think the atheists follow themselves so any post - whether it makes sense or not - gets a 'like' . Its their way of putting forward an impression that a statement or response is profound .

plaetton:


You still don't get it, otherwise, you still wouldn't be pulling a designer out of your arxx, like you just did above.

How can you speculate about the viewpoints of a hypothetical designer.

You are basing your entire argument on a fact that is not evidence.
Or, are you the designer ?

You made two suppositions about the universe

-made from randomness and chaos

- nature evolves

And I told you that these two "points" you made do not preclude design

Order from chaos can still be a design concept same with evolutionary development .

In summary , your points are too weak for you to be obdurate about them

I am just refuting your suppositions not that I agree such ever happened

PastorAIO:


But the laws of nature are not flouted. So there is actually Order. The problem is that you cannot discern the order. So Order and Chaos are states of the mind when observing phenomena, they are not inherent in phenomena.
What you see as chaos, someone else with another perspective may see a perfect order.

@plaetton - at least someone came close to elucidating point 2

2. An observer can see processes as Random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer .

CoolUsername:


Again I'll use my pothole analogy. Potholes form on poorly constructed or old roads due to friction and agents of denudation.

But say, I suddenly want to replicate a particular pothole, wouldn't I need to take measurements? Wouldn't I suddenly to decide on the materials end equipment I need? Wouldn't I need to meticulously, chip away on a rock (or whatever material I choose) to form that particular pothole? Does that make the original pothole intelligently designed?

JackBizzle , here is a proper sophist argument . I am talking of life forms and natural systems being emulated to solve problems or have a better understanding of them

Even considering your argument the pothole has various causes of existence acting unconsciously at various instances to produce it . It keeps changing in size gradually as those agents continue acting on it . Though unconsciously done , there are causes that led to its existence and gradual formation .

The sun gives white people skin cancer, that is NOT a desirable effect of the sun or being white. Also, solar winds are detrimental to humanity, a strong enough solar wind would do a lot of damage to civilization

How does this preclude that fact that its a design ? Anyway the bible says that another earth and universe would replace the present one . So whatever flaw you are insinuating has been admitted in the bible with a possible replacement being imminent

In other words, the so-called 'design' is still messed up in more ways than one. It seems more like life adapted to its surroundings rather than the other round.

Isn't that the essence of intelligence

True, but to the audience, chaotic processes do nothing to prove that there is indeed a designer. In other words, external proof of the designer is still needed.

Does it matter how the audience choose to view it ?

The argument was that since the processes are chaotic then it precludes a designer . Then I refuted it by saying that chaotic processes producing desired results can still the design concept .

Order from chaos could have been the design concept .

Looking at your atheistic view : Order from chaos is the perspective of the observer but does chaos know that it has produced what has been perceived as order ?

In other words , the perception of chaos and order differs

johnydon22:


#sighs for goodness sake simply take a glance into the physics text book to at least understand the simple mechanisms behind these natural phenomenons.. there is no "who" needed in the process neither are these things "laws" as that of a judiciary..

Simple mechanisms that derived that propensity for the functionalities from where ?

You were saying?

I am not here to make any case for biological evolution though, Just used the pictures to show you just how naive the bolded words were.

these other primates also have beards just like humans contrary to your naive expectations.

It can only take great ignorance of these other primates for someone to avow that..

.
That was a joke ?

johnydon22:


And this chaos is still in the fore front of universal evolution and modifications, it is still how the totality of natural manifestations occur.

Deep in the macro world, it is the chaotic tussle between Nebula and gravity that births stars, it is the violent nuclear fusion of stars that produces the most basic elements, it is the violent death of stars that scatter these elements in the cosmos making it possible for terrestrial planets like earth to have these in abundance.

There is no two ways about it, Chaos always produces results ...


No understanding was in place, Nature is ever changing, ever developing and ever chaotic.

The natural process does not understand a galaxy is already an ordered system before another slams into it and larger galaxies are born.

Old stars were less in composition than new ones because more elementary values enters the picture and the system gets more complex and changing.

There are thousands of asteroids that are in close orbit in this system that can crash into earth anytime.

Yes nature is a chaotic process and it is ever changing, it is not stagnant and no result is ever final..

So it will forever keep changing, it will forever keep modifying in respect to the constant chaotic values abound and that is the trait of a random system.

And I ask again how does the supposition that order comes from chaos preclude a designer . Order from chaos could have been the design concept .

You disagreeing does not change the fact that order from chaos could have been the design concept .

Do you now understand , or should I elucidate?

@CoolUsername

Last last intelligent design can boil down to perception

PastorAIO:




But the laws of nature are not flouted. So there is actually Order. The problem is that you cannot discern the order. So Order and Chaos are states of the mind when observing phenomena, they are not inherent in phenomena.
What you see as chaos, someone else with another perspective may see a perfect order.

It is not so much about observation or perception, but the inherent mathematics of a process or phenomenom.

And yes, the laws of nature, or more accurately, the laws of mathematics are the only things that are consistent in every process of nature.

Take for example, The Brownian Motion.http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Brownian_Motion

In Brownian Motion, the laws of physics are consistent, but the motion of particles are not in consistent or predictable patterns.
They are Random and chaotic.

Ironically, Brownian Motion ( the study of randomness and CHAOS) is used to study and analyze many processes in nature, including market analysis( the aggregations of human conscious actions).

KingEbukaNaija:


And I ask again how does the supposition that order comes from chaos preclude a designer . Order from chaos could have been the design concept .

You disagreeing does not change the fact that order from chaos could have been the design concept .

Do you now understand , or should I elucidate?

Because "a designer" is imaginary.

In science, when we deal with hypothetical or imaginary particles or phenomena, we look for mathematical corollaries that are, at the least, testable.

You, having previously stated that your designer is outside the scope of time and space, it should be pretty obvious to you by now that your designer lives only at the farthest reaches of your imagination.
While that is OK for you, it's not good enough for science.

Joshthefirst:
But they are.
You want to make this an argument over words?

Precise does not mean the same. It means 'fitting a particular accuracy'. That two conditions are precise does not mean that said conditions are 'exact'

You see chaos where order is beautifully showcased.

That conditions are precise, does not mean that conditions are exactly the same, and said products will be replicas.

Precise conditions means that conditions are consistent and agree with each other. Without the precise atmospheric conditions snow does not form at all.

When we see precision in a process, and accuracy of products made, then we cannot call such a process chaotic.

edited

Josh, you're a man of science, are you not ?

Aren't you forgetting something, an indispensable tool of scientific inquiry ?

It's called Mathematics.
Daahhhh !!

There are no ifs and buts in mathematics. The geometry and mathematical values of two things are either exact or not exact.
If they are exact, then they are same, similar or precise.
If they are NOT exact , then they are not same, not similar, not precise.
Comprende?

No two snowflakes are similar , because not two snowflakes have the same geometry and mathematical value.
Simple.

No amount of verbal sophistry would change that.

PastorAIO:




But the laws of nature are not flouted. So there is actually Order. The problem is that you cannot discern the order. So Order and Chaos are states of the mind when observing phenomena, they are not inherent in phenomena.
What you see as chaos, someone else with another perspective may see a perfect order.

The term Chaos never assumes that the laws of nature ( more accurately, the laws of physics) are flouted.

Mind you that the laws of physics is not one homogeneous law, but countless strings of laws Pulling, Tugging and Modulating particles of matter at any given point in space and time.

With that in mind, my position is that the laws of physics engender Random uncoordinated movements and Chaos when they act in concert on particles of matter.

So, while the laws of physics are immutable, the resultant phenomena are Random and chaotic at the basic or elementary level.

plaetton:


The term Chaos never assumes that the laws of nature ( more accurately, the laws of physics) are flouted.

Mind you that the laws of physics is not one homogeneous law, but countless strings of laws Pulling, Tugging and Modulating particles of matter at any given point in space and time.

With that in mind, my position is that the laws of physics engender Random uncoordinated movements and Chaos when they act in concert on particles of matter.

So, while the laws of physics are immutable, the resultant phenomena are Random and chaotic at the basic or elementary level.

This is correct...

Example, planetary movements... The planetary Object would want to continue moving in a straight line (In respect to newtons law of motion that a body in motion will continue in that part and speed forever unless acted upon by another force)

Now the gravitation attraction from the body of larger Mass e.g the sun will be pulling the body towards it..

This is the chaos and these two forces are at a tussle because the body is being yanked towards two conflicting points.

The result is that the planetary body takes the part in between the points of the two forces and so an elliptical orbit is born as a child of the chaotic tussle between two conflicting forces.

Natural laws interact randomly and they brew chaos in their interactions..

johnydon22:


This is correct...

Example, planetary movements... The planetary Object would want to continue moving in a straight line (In respect to newtons law of motion that a body in motion will continue in that part and speed forever unless acted upon by another force)

Now the gravitation attraction from the body of larger Mass e.g the sun will be pulling the body towards it..

This is the chaos and these two forces are at a tussle because the body is being yanked towards two conflicting points.

The result is that the planetary body takes the part in between the points of the two forces and so an elliptical orbit is born as a child of the chaotic tussle between two conflicting forces.

Natural laws interact randomly and they brew chaos in their interactions..

Thank you.

Now, our Intelligent Design friends would point at the earth's orbit as being perfectly arranged for for stability and life.

But they forget that it took the Earth about 1 billion years of CHAOTIC wobbling just to establish what now looks like a very perfect and stable orbit around the sun.
Even at that, the Earth still wobbles, talkless of the fact that a large passing comet can and has interrupted the earth's orbital trajectory from time to time.

plaetton:


Because "a designer" is imaginary.

In science, when we deal with hypothetical or imaginary particles or phenomena, we look for mathematical corollaries that are, at the least, testable.

You, having previously stated that your designer is outside the scope of time and space, it should be pretty obvious to you by now that your designer lives only at the farthest reaches of your imagination.
While that is OK for you, it's not good enough for science.

Does science disprove the existence of a creator ? No

KingEbukaNaija:


Does science disprove the existence of a creator ? No

We were in fact created by something. Johnydon22 postulates that it was the mysterious dark energy. Others claim that it was another universe. Deists claim a supreme being. Nobody really knows. Except YOU guys and the Muslims.

Scientists don't know.

plaetton:


Josh, you're a man of science, are you not ?

Aren't you forgetting something, an indispensable tool of scientific inquiry ?

It's called Mathematics.
Daahhhh !!

There are no ifs and buts in mathematics. The geometry and mathematical values of two things are either exact or not exact.
If they are exact, then they are same, similar or precise.
If they are NOT exact , then they are not same, not similar, not precise.
Comprende?

I have not suggested any ifs and buts in the formation of snowflakes so far. I have only stated that they are formed under precise atmospheric conditions, and I have stated that precise in this case does not mean exact.
In mathematics, there is probability, and there is variation. There is permutation and combination. There are sets and subsets. There is a precise set of atmospheric conditions for the formation of snowflakes, and there are variable subsets of that set that result in the formation of different types of snowflakes with different physical characteristics. Not hard to understand.

Snow won't fall at all if conditions aren't right enough.
Snow doesn't fall everywhere, because the atmospheric conditions for the formation of snow are not available in every place.

plaetton: No two snowflakes are similar , because not two snowflakes have the same geometry and mathematical value.
Simple.

So? How do variations in the physical condition of a particular substance render its formation chaotic?
The bolded is what you are stating as rule, and is not true.