The world's history is mostly pre-determined to happen the way it has happened.

I apologize for not responding in round 1. I had very little free time due to the holiday season and an increase in work hours accordingly. I did type up a lengthy, near 8,000 character response originally, but my web browser decided to close randomly before it could be submitted, which infuriated me. Again, to all, I apologize. On to my response for Round 2... In Round 1 you stated: "What I am saying logically and scientifically it can be proven that world history on Earth would be similar to world history on another planet with the same conditions as earth." Where you fail here is with the use of the word "proven". The burden of "proof" is on you here. Mere probability will not suffice. Sure, it could be argued that there would be *similarities* based on the basic laws of nature and science through evolution, but history is not predetermined. This statement is further *assuming* that a world with the same conditions as Earth would *certainly* develop intelligent life, us. And, this is also assuming that this "twin planet" would by this time contain the same organisms in all categories: insects, mammals, birds, fish etc. of all the same species as we see every day here on Earth. For, if not, history could, and would, follow a different path. It should be noted that evolution through natural selection deals a lot with chance. Opportunistic organisms compete, thrive, or die out, all depending on their surrounding environment (that may occasionally change randomly to favor a new organism over a previous one [is weather consistant and predictable by pattern without observation?]), competition (survival of the fittest), and most importantly, their own actions. Free will must be taken into account, for free will is contradictory to the idea of predetermined history. Thoughts and actions are not predetermined. Seemingly favorable actions might be encouraging to an individual, but individuals do not always take the most favorable route. Criminal action is evidence of this. Some individuals take risks, others do not. Unique personalities play their part in history. Personality is not predetermined. Thoughts and actions cannot be predicted, therefore, history cannot be predetermined. Future decisions are not wired into our genes at birth, and many decisions are made without confidence in either option, thus random. Even the slightest variation can make all the difference in decades time. In Round 1 you also stated: "Earth is the perfect distance away from the sun that our atmosphere wont be sucked into the sun's orbit, which is the case with mars. We are the perfect near the sun that there is suitable warmth for life. Therefore life exist on Earth." I'm not sure how this has anything to do with your argument, but I can say with absolute certainty that it is wholly inaccurate. The atmosphere of Mars dissipated over millions of years, accelerating as the core solidified, due to its low gravity and lack of a magnetic field (produced by a liquid molten core), not its position in the solar system. The magnetic field of Earth deflects much of the solar wind from the sun, preventing it from stripping away its atmosphere. Mars does not have such a shield, thus its atmosphere is literally blowing away. Mars is actually *further* from the Sun than the Earth. Thus, with the logic of your argument one might wonder why Mars' atmosphere succumbed to the attractive force of gravity generated by the Sun, and not the Earth. It would also be baffling to wonder why Venus, whose atmosphere is nearly 900 times as dense as the Earths, would not succumb to this same fate, considering the fact that Venus is about 30 million miles closer to the Sun than the Earth. You then go on to make arguments considering geography, agriculture and climate's role in developing civilization. Again, although this forms a blueprint for a *potential* history and creates a probable pattern that appears logically predictable, it does not connect the dots in absolute terms as you claim. It's a basic foundation upon which decisions and conflicts arise, but none of these can be determined with absolute certainty, and even those that seem probable based on the circumstances depending on geography and agricultural trade between different factions of humanity, there is no telling how said conflicts would play out due to free will, actions and decision making, often reliant on individual personality -- social and psychological tendencies. A few alterations in decision making could change the course of a battle, and these decisions are reliant on the actions of the pawns of war. In Round 2 you go on to give more examples of correlative behavior. Although these are examples of independently derived correlative patterns to solve problems and exploit resources etc., this still doesn't lead to an absolute, predetermined history. We can't pick and choose, everything has to fall in place perfectly. Perfectly! These examples are empty of their purpose. Human innovation utilizes logic in a generic manner. Such rudimentary innovations are often dictated by the logic and reason of human instinct. If you're cold, instinct tells you to shield your body from the environment. If it rains, instinct tells you to find, or create, shelter. Motivation is inspired to develop such innovations by building off these instinctual responses, it does not dictate history, it only serves as a catalyst to progression as a technological civilization. Dictating your advancement, not your decision making. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!