dsgrue3 said:
Wrong again, just go away. If nature were random, reproducing scientific results would be impossible. USE YOUR BRAIN. PS: You didn't answer my question. Then again, you never do. |
I can't believe you are still arguing. Man, you are so stuck on this Evolution vs. Creationism thing when I wasn't arguing about that originally. You imposed the fundamental creationist argument on me. You are just completely stuck on your forgone conclusion that you aren't reading carefully. I said random in a way. Yes, you can replicate in a lab many things that happen in nature individually. However, nature is a system of things that impact each other. We only obtain scientific results when we know all the variables. That's why we can only predict weather on a semiaccurate level only a week in advance excluding things like tropical storms. Even with tropical storms, there are many speculative paths that do not get narrower down until hours before it hits the place. Yes, nature has general patterns but in the real world, they are not sticking to patterns 100%









