Terribly flawed thinking demonstrated in the argument below, and clearly demonstrative of the use of ignorance and limitations.
First, there is absolutely nothing at all random about the shuffling of cards.
It is 100% physics, 100% purely physical. There are no violations of physical law during the shuffling of the cards, nothing fundamentally random about it.
Simply because someone lacks the tools to accurately and precisely know all the details of the shuffle which influence the outcome, they conclude the process is random.
It is not random, it is precise and following all the laws of nature.
If we could precisely measure each and every force and agent that was involved in the shuffling of the deck, which would include the cards, the atmosphere, gravity, etc. and precisely every movement of the person shuffling the cards, and the cards themselves we could with certainty predict the order of the cards being shuffled. There is no magic here, just simple physical interactions. There is no biological life in the cards, and none in the shuffle. There is only the nature of a human being involved in the process...which makes it unpredictable as to the outcome as well as the inability to measure each and every physical motion precisely.
Why people believe that an infinite bunch of monkeys typing infinitely will eventually produce Shakespeare's plays exactly, yet those same people think that a shuffling of a deck of cards produces a random result is daft.
There is no magic here. We could take a machine that would produce the exact same movements of shuffling every single time...exactly the same. Atmosphere exactly the same. External forces exactly the same. Cards exactly the same and starting from exactly the same sequence. Everything programmed via a computer.
So what happens? We have human behavior involved the process, which makes it beyond our ability to calculate all the possible factors, thus we claim "Eureka" it has to be RANDOM!
It is the human element that generates the most "random" events, because the belief dominates the scientific world that the mind is itself a random generator. All of this thinking of course conveniently stands in denial of the fundamental principles and axioms of cause and effect.
This concept of random happenings is the bedrock of evolutionary theory. It is a poor excuse for ignorance, but that is the cop out of the evolutionists perpetually. "We don't see a pattern, we can't figure out why, so it must be random."
"Well, science can't measure that and all the possible influences, so we have to insert RANDOM into the equation to make our formula work."
Really has nothing to do with science in a pure form, it has to do with advancement of ignorance, and strangely deciding that ignorance is more "logical" of a foundation to make a guess on than a guess of non random.
See, it is hard to prove intelligence and programming unless there is sufficient data, and easy to stand on a platform of limited evidence and knowledge with the position of "you have to prove random wrong first"
The modern scientific mind is so dominated by ego, so driven to pretend that it has the answers that it accepts a foundation of ignorance to build on. The need to speculate as to the "whys" without the ability to really know why is of course human nature.
Sadly science has no scientific understanding as to why this our human nature, or what human nature and nature of the mind actually are, that they have to build their house with the straw of ignorance.
Deep down they know that anything that is a product of the mind, i.e. scientific theory that rests on an unprovable assumption of random is bogus, but I suppose human nature being what it is prevents them from any real intellectual honesty in this area.
Throw in the psychologically of the walking wounded with their issues with their own experience of religion, and you have the perfect situation to produce a god of randomness that they worship...
First, there is absolutely nothing at all random about the shuffling of cards.
It is 100% physics, 100% purely physical. There are no violations of physical law during the shuffling of the cards, nothing fundamentally random about it.
Simply because someone lacks the tools to accurately and precisely know all the details of the shuffle which influence the outcome, they conclude the process is random.
It is not random, it is precise and following all the laws of nature.
If we could precisely measure each and every force and agent that was involved in the shuffling of the deck, which would include the cards, the atmosphere, gravity, etc. and precisely every movement of the person shuffling the cards, and the cards themselves we could with certainty predict the order of the cards being shuffled. There is no magic here, just simple physical interactions. There is no biological life in the cards, and none in the shuffle. There is only the nature of a human being involved in the process...which makes it unpredictable as to the outcome as well as the inability to measure each and every physical motion precisely.
Why people believe that an infinite bunch of monkeys typing infinitely will eventually produce Shakespeare's plays exactly, yet those same people think that a shuffling of a deck of cards produces a random result is daft.
There is no magic here. We could take a machine that would produce the exact same movements of shuffling every single time...exactly the same. Atmosphere exactly the same. External forces exactly the same. Cards exactly the same and starting from exactly the same sequence. Everything programmed via a computer.
So what happens? We have human behavior involved the process, which makes it beyond our ability to calculate all the possible factors, thus we claim "Eureka" it has to be RANDOM!
It is the human element that generates the most "random" events, because the belief dominates the scientific world that the mind is itself a random generator. All of this thinking of course conveniently stands in denial of the fundamental principles and axioms of cause and effect.
This concept of random happenings is the bedrock of evolutionary theory. It is a poor excuse for ignorance, but that is the cop out of the evolutionists perpetually. "We don't see a pattern, we can't figure out why, so it must be random."
"Well, science can't measure that and all the possible influences, so we have to insert RANDOM into the equation to make our formula work."
Really has nothing to do with science in a pure form, it has to do with advancement of ignorance, and strangely deciding that ignorance is more "logical" of a foundation to make a guess on than a guess of non random.
See, it is hard to prove intelligence and programming unless there is sufficient data, and easy to stand on a platform of limited evidence and knowledge with the position of "you have to prove random wrong first"
The modern scientific mind is so dominated by ego, so driven to pretend that it has the answers that it accepts a foundation of ignorance to build on. The need to speculate as to the "whys" without the ability to really know why is of course human nature.
Sadly science has no scientific understanding as to why this our human nature, or what human nature and nature of the mind actually are, that they have to build their house with the straw of ignorance.
Deep down they know that anything that is a product of the mind, i.e. scientific theory that rests on an unprovable assumption of random is bogus, but I suppose human nature being what it is prevents them from any real intellectual honesty in this area.
Throw in the psychologically of the walking wounded with their issues with their own experience of religion, and you have the perfect situation to produce a god of randomness that they worship...
Quote from kjkent1:
Go to a Vegas casino, walk into the blackjack pit. Observe that the games are played with 1 to 6 decks. Every time one of those decks or shoes is shuffled, the order that results is so impossible that the probability that any of those orders will reoccur during some future shuffle is practically nil.
And, yet, this impossible act is occurring 24 X 7, 365 days a year, at every open blackjack table in every casino on Earth where blackjack, or any other card game is played.
Now, if you were to count all of those card games, you'ld probably come up with a few hundred thousand taking place at any one time, on the planet. But, given a world with sloshing seas, rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, puddles, etc., and knowing that the chemicals that are constituents of those water vessels actually have a natural affinity for attraction and binding, and further knowing that there are probably trillions of interactions going on every moment of every day on this planet and on other planets throughout the universe, is it really that bizarre that "something" weird might happen just one time.
Because it really does have to happen just once in the history of the universe in order to get things started. The new replicating molecule wouldn't have any competition for resources, because it would be utterly alone. It also wouldn't be doing a hell of a lot more than replicating with errors, and it's just possible that its error rate was hugely greater than that of modern organisms, so evolution would have been a lot faster.
And, of course, the organism and its successors didn't have any skeletal system to fossilize for eons, so whatever was going on would not be easily discovered in the future.
As for the rest of the story, well, science tells it pretty well. It's not a perfect novel and it's got some pretty big holes, but it fits the empirical data better than does an intelligent entity who slips in and out of our universe undetected.
But, even if the latter story is true, there is simply no means of distinguishing an actual "Act of God" (i.e., a true directed act of divine intervention) from a legal "Act of God" (i.e., an occurrence which is attributable to chance and for which no individual may be held liable -- and, the reason why there are insurance companies).
So, to what end does the ID advocate work? Instead of looking for actual evidence of third-party intervention in the processes of life, the IDer operates on the following circular syllogism:
1. Because the designer exists.
2. Things look designed to one of the designer's creations.
3. Therefore the designer exists.
While evolution operates on this syllogism:
1. Because the universe is composed of attractive and repulsive forces.
2. Turbulence is created causing various organisms to be created and destroyed.
3. Therefore evolution of an imperfect replicator is possible.
Is there evidence to support the ID construct? Sure, there loads of evidence to support #2 -- but nothing to support #1. While for the evolutionary construct, there is evidence for both #1 and #2.
So, objectively, if I have to choose which story is more plausible, I chose the latter, because there is evidence to support both premises.
There is no getting around the fact that in order to make ID a "science," the IDer must produce proof of the designer's existence independent of its designs. Until that happens, ID is not a science.
It could be true, but it's unprovable.