Greatsilverwyrm

That's how it was for me as well. Happy coincidence.

Read the rest of the article.

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion. As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given. http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612 Yet the question still arises that, if atomic radioactive decay is truly random, why is it linear and predictable outside of a single molecule? The link I posted has nothing to do with radioactive decay. Also, what? I'm not a quantum physicist but are you saying because we can run statistical analyses on the decay of certain atoms and determine a window for when that particle might decay it means that it's not random? Because that's fallacious.

Well, if you'll be so kind as to elaborate I'll be glad to voice my opinion. As far as I've seen, everything that "seems" random is not random at all - atomic radioactive decay was the previous example given. http://www.askamathematician.com/?p=612 That's the best overview description I could find of Bell's expiriment.

Y_Guy, what is your feeling on the claim that certain subatomic processes are completely random? Edit: and by "claim" I mean "widely-accepted fact".

Yes, that seems to be fairly reasonable. What I don't accept was that this was necessarily completely unguided. What evidence is there, in your mind, that it was guided? Is it simply that you can't accept it? An argument from incredulity doesn't fly.

Those aren't really quite ad hominem, they just aren't really very good arguments. I don't feel like going back through however many pages, so I'll ask a question of you: Do you accept that the biological diversity we see today is a result of gradual change in organisms over billions of years, and that most organisms have a common ancestor?

Oi! I take exception to that.

Anyone remember when cape dyes came out, and there was constantly a line to talk to the NPC?

HERP DERP. The Big Bang has not been observed, clearly, since it happened 13-odd billion years ago. But we can plainly see the evidence of it.

I don't think I ever did any, did I? I couldn't find any on a cursory search, at least...

Here you go, also circa 2003. This was also in your folder, I'm not sure I remember why. Edit: Why the [bleep] does it say a "wyrm sig production"? I seem to remember you forced me to put that there?

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you?

This whole question of "randomness" is just a pointless semantics debate. Y_Guy. Do you believe in a creative force of some sort? Why? What evidence do you have to support that idea?

Let me point out that when you said: I laughed at you. And I absolutely disagree with you on that point, and it would take someone without a clue as to what a mutation is, or how it works in evolution, to say it. I'm calling you out on your ignorance. Anyhow, it seems you've wised up to the fact that mutation is very pertinent to evolution and genetic variation, and that evolution at its very core is a mutation of species - changes in their DNA - and that mutations are purely random. I don't feel like discussing this anymore, I've got too much to do. You all take care now. It's true that mutations are random. What does that gain you? Advantageous mutations mean that individual is more likely to reproduce and pass that mutation onto it's offspring. This is the heart of evolution.

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer. Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%. Here's a six sided die. You get to roll it once. Oh, you rolled a 6. What was the probability you'd roll a 6? You only rolled it once, we don't have other data points. We don't know what the other rolls would be, but we can make reasonable and logical assumptions. Six sided die? Six outcomes. Probability of rolling a six? Less than one, greater than zero, could be somewhere around 1/6. Also, I'm not calculating the probability of a specific species, I'm calculating the probability of the number of all known species. The probability of a specific species (such as humans, for example) would be MUCH lower - like the probability that their genome was a very specific length (30000 instead of 30001), and contained very specific values (like ACGTTTAATTGCCC versus GCGTTTAATTGCCC) which decreases at a very rapid one in 4^(length of key DNA) or less for complex life. A better critique would have been that my probability was just for a given planet being earth, and not for all planets in the universe. If that was the case, you'd sum it up as a geometric distribution sum[k=1, k=n planets] {(1/10^120)*(1 - 1/10^120)^k) That number wouldn't approach anything remotely close to a small number for anything less than n=10^40, and I don't think there can be that many planets. Which is why I say its too random. Ugh. This is why I hate bringing statistics into this discussion, it gets too messy. Even if I were to grant you that the probabilities are absurdly small, what does that gain you? You say that the probability is "too low". Why is it too low? What other data do you have to make the claim that life could not have developed the way science tells us it has? You're making an argument from incredulity. It's just straight-up fallacious logic. Hai Misplaced! How's it going?

I always assumed you were older than me, hah. I'm in my last semester of college myself. You still do stuff related to graphics? Also I remember that sig. Nice shot of the old forums in the background. Nah, I hardly ever do any graphic work anymore, sadly. Just haven't had the need really..

and another one checks in - this just keeps getting more and more interesting! Who will be next? Outlaw rudy ? Salty Ant? The ever unforgettable Vaseline? Maybe Garm Sabre or Sadpoorguy? Who knows, Maybe thevilone11 or mercinary85 will show up! (kinda doubt it though lol) We need Dusqi, Rae, Grin_King, and Wistan too. Also, this seems relavent: Circa 2003, jesus. And Nadril: I'm mostly lurking offtopic.com and playing WoW these days, as far as my internet presence goes. (Other than Facebook, of course.) At college still (graduated high school almost 5 years ago, lawl). Have about a year left until I graduate. Working as well..

Many problems with this. The big one is that we don't have other data points. We don't know of other planets where life has evolved. We don't have other universes to compare. Therefore, the probability of life evolving as it has on our planet is incalculable. There isn't enough information to get a true answer. Furthermore, your assumption would maybe be kind of correct if you were calculating the probability of a specific species evolving, but, according to our best data the probability that, once started, life will proliferate and mutate to fill all available niches, assuming it doesn't die out completely, over time is approximately 100%.

Of course, but it doesn't change the fact that there were several billion years of random before the earth was formed. Not to mention, of course, that these "laws of nature" you speak of were also created randomly. It's still somewhat a misnomer to call it "random". Procedural would be more precise. That also doesn't change that there's no evidence for any kind of creator.

Haha, WHAT :D *fluffles Wyrmy* How's it goin' fellers?

By that definition, then yes the universe was a random event. But I don't think thats how people are using the term... For example, you flip 5 coins, and you see that 2 of them come up heads. You then look at these and say "Look! It came out randomly? Its too random, God did it!" CGF is using the idea of "random" to somehow imply that the event is unrealistic, illogical, or improbable. All he's trying to do is call a horse a horse - random is random, and if you believe that there is no creator or higher being then the universe cannot have been anything but random. I don't know if I'd call it unrealistic or illogical, but certainly it is highly improbable. Random implies that every step of the process is equally random, which is far from the case. Once the earth was formed, for instance, life evolving was much more likely given certain aspects of primitive earth. The universe as it exists today makes a lot of sense based on the laws of nature. The fact is that there's no solid evidence that there was any higher power at work.

What's going on in here?

Hey so what level are you in RS?

I don't like to get into individual bible verses if I can help it, you get into all kinds of nit-picking that doesn't really lead anywhere. Gorgoroth: what proof do you have that your god exists?