Physicists are not debating AP. Some of them are speculating because they haven't found good answers to a lot of questions. AP is not within the domain of physics. BTW, why are you believing physicists now? I remember you were quite against them when you were debating global warming with me.
Why bother reinventing the wheel for someone who, as you have amply demonstrated here in this thread by any objective measure, would not even know how to use it. My time may not be all that valuable by some standards, but it is certainly worth more than that to me. And now I will let you continue with your implicit, albeit less-than-subtle, ad hominems towards others. (For someone who repeatedly puts posters down in other threads, you certainly seem to like using that term with an air of self-righteous indignation. A true study in contrasts.)
Fine by me if you can't express your own opinion, make an argument, dialogue on that. The topic is ID, but you want to make this about me? You sure do seem to have an axe to grind, go ahead if it makes you feel better TK9...
You're the one who's making this about you, clearly. T-Dog, always remember. The troll wins by losing. If it confuses you that he accuses you of the very fallacious, muddled, pure assertion, ad hominem and 'I know you are but what am I' arguments that are his stock-in-trade, let it go - it's all part of the plan.
Nonsense. Randomness is assumed and then something designed around this assumption. If it were not random, but designed and yet not known as designed, tests would still work. Doh! Entire theory based on assumption, then theory is engineered to fit the assumption. That is not science, that is circular reasoning...
Nonsense. Do you know what a temperature is? (hint: it's related to something called "entropy.") If you don't, don't open your mouth.
Funny. Sad, too See my attachment for learning the antidote to your belief about the importance and the effects of entropy as applied to how it all works.