AstroGamer said:
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% |
I could just copy my same response, that's how bad your argument is.
Random doesn't mean we don't have all the variables, it means random. Not having all variables != random. Random means, even with all the variables we cannot come to a definitive conclusion.
The only argument for randomness in nature is quantum physics and it may or may not be the case since it's not well understood, nor does it apply to macro-level where classical physics is still king.
Imprecise weather models are not a product of randomness, they are a product of incomplete models.
