Inexorable again,

Totally delusional! Obviously, there is no point in attempting to carry on a rational discussion with you.

So I decided to write a little bit about randomness because of complaints like yours:

The simplest example of randomness in the natural world that I can think of involves the measurement of the magnetic moment of an electron. First off, the phrase “magnetic moment” isn’t as scary as it sounds. If you consider a compass needle on the Earth, it has a magnetic north and south, which are of course in opposite directions. When it is in a exterior magnetic field (say the Earth), the south end of the needle will be attracted to the Earth’s north pole. This misalignment is excess energy the system has, and it will dissipate it. The compass needle does this by swinging itself towards the Earth’s magnetic north pole. But now it has kinetic energy (the energy involved in the swinging motion). Eventually this kinetic energy will be dissipated through friction (as heat) and the needle will come to rest pointing at the Earth’s magnetic north pole.

In most ways (the difference between them is the import part), the electron behaves this way as well. The electron has a magnetic moment, which means it has a north and south pole (in opposite directions), just like the compass needle. If you put the electron in a strong exterior magnetic field (just imagine a huge magnet near it), you will quickly find that the electron’s south pole is aligned with the magnet’s north pole. Here is our first important difference. Friction does not exist on the microscopic scale. So the electron can not dissipate this extra energy from the misalignment through friction. Instead it emits a single photon (a particle of light) that carries away all of this extra energy.

If you are familiar with the subject, you can calculate the angle of the misalignment based on the energy contained in the photon. Here is the heart of the problem. Empirically, this experiment only has 2 possible outcomes. Either:

1. You receive a photon of exactly the strength associated with the south pole of the electron being perfectly misaligned (implying that the south pole of the electron was perfectly aligned with the south pole of the magnet). That is, you find there is a misalignment of exactly 180 degrees
2. You receive no photon at all (implying the south pole of the electron was perfectly aligned with the north pole of the magnet). That is, you find there is a misalignment of exactly 0 degrees.

Now if your mind is not blown, you need to re-read the last paragraph, again and again if you have too. Because that information alone is enough to guarantee the world is random. Consider the following experiment:

Someone gives you an electron, you don’t know which way it is pointing. You put it into your huge magnetic field which lets say has the exterior magnets field “up”. You detect a photon is emitted. Now you know the electron’s south pole is pointed up. Now you rotate your exterior magnet 90 degrees so the exterior magnet’s south pole is “left”, and put the electron back in. By classical logic it should now emit a photon associated with a 90 degree misalignment. But no! As the previous paragraph states, you will either find 180 degree misalignment or 0 misalignment. If you repeat the experiment over and over, you will find that the probability of finding a 0 degree misalignment (no photon) is [cosine(θ/2)]²; where θ is the angle between the south pole of the electron and the north pole of the magnet. This gives the following conclusions:

1. If you first align the electron with the south pole facing up, and the magnet with its north pole “up” this difference in the angle is 0 degrees giving: [cosine(0/2)]² = 0. You will never find a photon when the alignment is off by an angle of 0.
2. If you first align the electron with the south pole facing “left”, and the magnet with its north pole “up” this difference in the angle is 90 degrees giving: [cosine(90/2)]² = 0.5; There is a 50% chance to not find a photon.
3. If you align them at 45 degrees giving: [cosine(45/2)]² ≈ 0.85; there is about a 85% chance to not find a photon.
4. If you align them at 135 degrees giving: [cosine(135/2)]² ≈ 0.15; there is about a 15% chance to not find a photon.
5. If you align them at 180 degrees giving: [cosine(180/2)]² = 1; there is a 0% chance to not find a photon.

Summary for those who have fallen asleep:
The above was in pretty precise language, the following summary is not: we find that the electron is either perfectly aligned with any magnet or perfectly anti-aligned. There is no in-between (this is why the word quantum is used, it seems the electron can only point in one of two directions, instead of just any old direction). It seems the electron “snaps” into one of these configuration when we do the experiment. With the distribution of the snaps being determined our simple equation above; yet the outcome of any given snap is random. This is an example of the randomness that can never be avoided. You might notice it has nothing to do with being smart, or having better equipment. In fact, the better equipment you use, the closer and closer your data will replicated [cosine(θ/2)]². Or in other words, the more precise you do the measurement, the more random it becomes. This is why you can never escape randomness, it is cooked into the system from the beginning.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I patiently await the standard "nuh-uh" responses, signaling to me that I have wasted my time.

@ Inex A

"r are you telling us that you are doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results? (Remember this is the defination of insanity) you are either insane or you think we are all as gullible as old man!!!"

Actually the phrase is "repeating the same actions and expecting different results" whereas Nyar is saying that repeating the same actions in this case DOES indeed give different results.
And it does not matter whether you label the results "random" and leave it at that, (which in essence they appear to be) or "random" pending further investigation.
Only a poorly educated person would say "random" (we do not know why this occurs), ergo god/creator/designer exists. That would be a supposition and a false conclusion, e.g god of the gaps.

It's creationists who cite so called experts on evolution that turn out to have no expertise or credentials in the field of biology.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism is an unevidenced religious belief. It's a no brainer...

Also why did you have extra sock puppet accounts? That's pretty sad if you ask me.