| AstroGamer said: 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. |
No, you decided to focus on random because it was your initial position. I didn't bring it up, YOU did. Short memory? Do you know how to hit the enter key to format your response so it isn't a gigantic blob of shit? I'd appreciate that.
So instead of attempting to explain what you meant, you decided to mispresent your own position multiple times? I can't understand the thought process there. "degree of uncertainty" is not random either. If I have a 60% chance, there is plenty of uncertainty, but that doesn't mean it is random. Simply means it doesn't happen every time.
Libertarian? Lol wtf does politics have to do with science?
I back my arguments with a ton of scientific sources, because I'm not an authority. You seem content to argue based upon your ignorance without sources and it certainly shows. Hope you can at least understand that.
