Back to the snowflake. It, indeed, does show that complexity can arise from natural processes. The formation of molecules (Water, Sulfur + heat forms H2SO4, a strong acid) shows that complexity can arise from natural chemical processes. Admittedly, these are relatively minor increases in complexity, but they are increases, nonetheless. I believe you and I can agree on this amount of complexity increase.
So...
If complexity can increase through natural processes then what is the upper limit of complexity that can be achieved though those processes? Amino acids, like the ones found in meteors? Proteins? RNA? DNA? Cells? Life?
How can we identify this upper limit.
If there is an upper limit in the complexity that can be brought about by natural processes, what is the mechanism that sets this upper limit?
It's easy with ice. You freeze it and it crystalizes. You freeze it some more, and there it sits. Still Ice. Doesn't matter how much more you freeze it, you still have ice.
Same goes for the iron rusting business. Iron and oxygen lock in with each other and become pretty well useless. That's why we try to prevent rust. I know we can break up the bond, but I'm not aware of natural ways for it to just up and happen. Neither will rust evolve into something useful if you leave it setting around long enough.
I may have some self-educating to get around to. It's my understanding that these examples actually represent higher entropy / lower complexity states; but I don't understand this well enough to explain it. I admit that to the layman things could appear more complex, but the pros know better. Basically that's why they lock up tight.
I'll try to start anyhow. Ice is a solid. And it's also a crystal. It's molecules are all locked together, just like they're designed to do. You can't combine it with anything unless you melt it. That's the direction you need to go to make it into something more complex. So water at least has some potential, where ice does not. Now which is the road to complexity, ice or water?
But take that water and combine it with iron. Another dead end! It's locked up and there it'll set 'til doomsday. I saw some evolutionist propaganda on TV claiming some rusty hills had been that way since oxygen first became available. Like 3B years. Even they don't seem to expect rust to evolve.
Part of the confusion is caused by the snowflake being a very poor choice. You'd do well to part company with your fellows on this one. Snowflakes are ice, and structural complexity hasn't got anything to do with chemical complexity. You can end up arguing apples & oranges.
Another reason it's a bad choice is because it's too obvious that it's not going to evolve - ever. How long has there been ice all over Antarctica? Any sign of it evolving? Zip!
On the flip side, life has
both chemical complexity and structural complexity going on within the cell. Confusing detail, that one. And you had enough obstacles already...
These are questions I would expect anti-abiogenesists to explore in order to support their theory that God made life in it's final form instantaneously.
My, don't you just shun that burden of proof! The abiogenesis crowd is making the crazy claim that life arose from a random natural process. They up & made that claim after it was well known that life does not arise from non-life. Now they'd made it in the past & got slam-dunked, but they didn't learn their lesson. This time, they need to produce.
Now chemistry ain't my bag. It's fascinating, but too much memorization. And I'm confident they already know most of the ways atoms bond, and the limitations. Bonds are bonds, after all. Things that are bound can't up & do as they please. I'd say those bonds are probably the very mechanism you're asking me to provide, but I'd have to investigate some more before I could be firm about it.
And besides, if nature could manufacture anything better in the way of complexity, why are you guys always bringing up snow?
**Title implies nothing - just tryin' to be cute.
