[ThinkPlease]

Hey Reuben, would you mind attributing where you got this from, instead of plagiarizing it? Not disclosing your references is so annoying.

Oh and by the way, your arguments contradict each other. 5 doesn't make sense in the light of 2 or 3, right?

If 5 were true, how can snowflakes be formed in a cloud? Order from disorder, right? And 4? Just a bad argument. Whoever thought it up has no concept of gravity, or just how long billions of years is. That's not surprising, since whoever thought these arguments up has no problem limiting God to a little book written by men thousands of years ago.

[Reuben Hick]

Hey Reuben, would you mind attributing where you got this from, instead of plagiarizing it?

Hey ThinkPlease, are you still beating your domestic partner?

So, ThinkPlease, could you think, please?   We know that you can try to avoid defending your faith by attacking others, but ad hominems aren't recognized as great alternatives.
Let's look at your well thought out response to the five matters brought to bear:

Oh and by the way, your arguments contradict each other. 5 doesn't make sense in the light of 2 or 3, right?

It is true that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated.  It is true that according to the that law the universe should be uniform and have a homogeneous and isotropic background radiation.  But examination of the cosmos has revealed that we have a "lumpy Big Bang".   As a brilliant scientist, no doubt, you are probably quick to throw away Newtonian physics because maintenance of an unprovable theory is tantamount to the ends of erasing God.   Under the Creation model, everything works.   Instead of having all matter appear ex nihilo in one central place in the universe and having it explode in such a way where chaos turns magically into order, we believe, as Scripture plainly states, that the stars and planets were put into place for a purpose and that is to determine signs and seasons.   Under intelligent design, it should be expected that the universe is not uniform.  Because we are told that the stars were put into their place we should expect a "lumpy universe" in accordance to accomplishing the goals of providing signs and seasons.

In short, we don't have a contradiction.  You do, by the mere fact you have anisotropic universe and a theory that requires scientists to abandon well understood physical laws.  We have a beautiful universe, masterfully and wonderfully made, you have an ugly accident that defies explanation.  Why is this important?  Because as Creationists, we believe that there is a purpose to the order in which we see.   Because we believe that there is purpose, we can rely on those things which we discover to be true.   As God haters, you can't even trust natural laws anymore.  You look at the 2nd Law and see it as an impediment to your faith.   You can't even trust your own findings to be true.

But I do thank you for the belly laugh this morning for this particular comment:

If 5 were true, how can snowflakes be formed in a cloud?

My natural response was to assume that you were being sarcastic and thus put something this stupid out there as a joke, but on later consideration I figured it would be best to assume that you were serious.  If you did submit this as a joke, I apologize in advance.

My initial reaction was what does a snowflake have in common with the Big Bang?

• Though there is argument among the ranks, it is pretty much agreed upon that prior to this big explosion water wasn't present.   In snow, all of the material necessary is right there.  For Big Bang, the material had to be produced out of energy first.
• From observing that snow does not fall in Honduras or the Caribbean islands, even though they have all the essential materials for making snow, we can safely conclude that there must be certain atmospheric conditions to facilitate the production of snow.   What were those atmospheric preconditions for the Big Bang?
• Snow does not originate from a tiny speck the size of the period at the end of this sentence.  As you have observed it comes from "a cloud".   This has no analog with the Big Bang.
• A snow flake does form from the collection of between 50 and 200 individual snow crystals.   I know of no Big Bang "crystals" in the theory.
• Snow crystals grow as they collide with water vapor that has attached itself to dirt blown up into the air.  I don't know of any "water" vapor or otherwise , "air" or "dirt particles" that were "blown up into the air" in Big Bang Theory.   Again there is no correlation.
• Snow is a homogeneous collection of water vapor bounded to a dirt particle, what is homogeneous about this planet we are on?  Are you saying that all of the objects in the heavens are homogeneous collections bounded to a dirt particle?
• Unlike the current myth, not all snowflakes are symmetrical.   In order to get a symmetrical snowflake, it must fall to earth spinning like a top, otherwise they appear as a lopsided clump.  This lopsided clump is what I am to believe is your definition of "order"?   Or is the known physical laws like "gravity" and their application via mechanisms like "wind resistance" have a parallel in the Big Bang theory that rejects Newtonian physics?
• You may have pounced on the word gravity, as that is the traditional explanation of the formation of planets and stars.   Trust me, snow flakes are not formed by snow crystals bonding together because of their individual gravitational fields.   Again, your metaphor has absolutely nothing to do with Big Bang.

I can continue, but you may project again and assume that I have plagiarized...