46% of Americans believe in Creationism

[AstroGamer]

dsgrue3 said:

AstroGamer said:

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%

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. 

There is no true randomness in reality. In fact, i was never actually arguing that natural selection is random in the first place. It was some idiot who thought that when I said "randomly"  it meant random. I meant the universe acts in a certain complex way that  it causes several different forces to act on a population that it causes certain traits to be passed.Don't getting hung up a word when it says "in a way". That means it could be described as such. For example, the implications of the Heisenberg Principle can be considered random, but in reality, it just that we cannot determine all the variables at the same moment. If you take nature on an actual macro scale where you consider all the forces of nature, it takes on a randomness like I described. The wind, the moisture, the clouds, the predators, the prey, mutations, the composition of the ground, composition of the air  and the adaptation of the species are only a few of the variables that influence evolution. Now think about all those variables and the way they interact both each other and the examined species. Wouldn't you consider that at least bit chaotic?