dynoman,
with what assessment do you disagree?
that matter and energy display stable and reliable natural characteristics?
that the interaction of matter and energy can be, at least under some common conditions, statistically predictable?
that the relations of large aggregations of matter and energy can produce patterned cyclic behavior?
what?
seriously: what, besides naked incredulity, do you bring to the table?
with what assessment do you disagree?
that matter and energy display stable and reliable natural characteristics?
that the interaction of matter and energy **can be**, **at least under some common conditions**, statistically predictable?
that the relations of large aggregations of matter and energy **can produce** patterned cyclic behavior?
what?
Actually none now, since it's worded a bit different than this;
why is it so very difficult for many to recognize that natural processes and material properties are NOT random and by their natures impose patterning and order
seriously: what, besides naked incredulity, do you bring to the table?
What's wrong with naked incredulity? Would you deny it has been in the mix of many great leaps forward even that of the evolution of the TOE itself?
Go for it.