46% of Americans believe in Creationism

[AstroGamer]

dsgrue3 said:

AstroGamer said:

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?

You literally change your argument every single time you post and then get offended when you struggle to type what you actually mean.

"Oh dude by random I didn't mean random"

I'm inclined to agree with a deterministic Universe, but I don't claim certainty in this regard as you seem to be. Maybe you didn't mean it? 

The traits that are passed are not random in any way, they come straight from your parents.

Okay now you claim that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is random, yet already said randomness doesn't exist. Which is it? Stick to a position, you're jumping around like a kid with ADHD.

Can't be bothered to read the rest.

I decided to focus on randomness because you were focused on it. I was going to disregard this thread at the point I was inaccurately rebuted but you brought it back up. I never flat out said nature was random and I never called evolution random. I was explaining the definition of random I was using as I could not really think of another word that would fit that well in the last post. "Chaotic" perhaps or maybe "with degrees of uncertainty" may have fit now. I have also been trying to word my arguments so that they could fit a determinist, materialist ideology and was trying to take persons out of the equation since those would cause the differences between a libertarian and deterministic universe. I probably should have put that "traits are passed on to surviving generations" as in like natural selection. On Heisenberg principle, read the full sentence. Considered does not mean is. It just means people may think that it is. Like you seem to consider other's arguments wrong without considering your own argument wrong or insufficient when reading.