There's a good start.
> > Do you think there's something fundamentally different about
> the limits of
> > change that allow a snowflake to form from water vs. allowing amebas to
> > mutate into humans? If so/not, why?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "limits of change", but yes there is a big
> difference in the processes of ice formation and human evolution.
> The main
> similarity is that both are examples of localized decreases in entropy,
> allowed by the second law of thermodynamics because they take place in
> open systems.
A fundamental difference between Creationists and Evolutionists is that
Creationist believe that the source of complexity is intelligence while the
Evolutionist believes that the source of complexity is nature. The problem
for Evolutionists is that empirical science squarely demonstrates that
they're wrong. If nature can create complexity, show me just one example.
Of course, the first thing they'll say is a snowflake. The problem with
that is that information for that complexity has always existed (nevermind
that there's never any hope of ice crystals becoming more complex than a
snowflake). So, when I challenge Evolutionists to show us that nature can
create complexity, I always include the qualifier "indefinite," as in
"Demonstrate an indefinite increase in complexity in nature." If you read
the past messages on "Where's the Evolution?" you'll note the absolute
failure of Evolutionists to provide any examples -- because there are no
examples. Evolution is foreign to nature.
> The difference, of course, is that ice formation does not involve
> inherited
> variation and natural selection.
Right. The design of snowflakes does not come from random variation nor
selection.