Which of these is more likely?

The latter. Most likely some sort of tamper or cheat.

Well the odds are astronomically long, so long in fact that no calculator I own is capable of displaying the number.

But with billions of roulette wheels running indefinitely, it would eventually happen.

If the conditions were controlled then I would have no other choice to assume it was a very unlikely coincidence.

Edit

No the universe does not have unlimited time, but there is an awful lot of it.

Around 100,000,000 galaxies, each with about 100,000,000 stars. Assume that each of these has five planets (this is just an assumption, I don't know how many planets every star has, nobody does) and that gives us 50,000,000,000,000,000 possible places for abiogenesis to occur (abiogenesis is the term for the begining of life, not evolution).

Assume that each has existed for around 4.6 billion years (the same as the earth) and i'd say that life was pretty likely.

My calculator couldn't reveal the results of your roulette wheel analogy, but that's something that has been made up by you, and those odds are therefore meaningless to your argument about the formation of life.

Once life had formed, my calculator tells me that there was a 99.99% chance (ish) that evolution would occur.

I explained to you yesterday that if a sample size is large enough (such as the universe) highly improbable things will happen.

If an even has a probability of 1 in ten billion, the even is expected to occur one thousand times over a course of 10 trillion trials.

Furthermore, an intelligent agency is not the sole reason why something would occur repeatedly. It could be that an event follows some principle or some cause.

Your "Intelligent agency of the gaps" is showing.

IF The roulette wheel results were TRULY determined by random chance, so long as the sample size supersedes the probability, it can still happen. Improbable does not equate impossible. If the sample size is large enough, even things that are virtually impossible can be expected to happen.

EDIT:

Apparently You can't read. Repost:

"IF The roulette wheel results were TRULY determined by random chance, so long as the sample size supersedes the probability, it can still happen. Improbable does not equate impossible. If the sample size is large enough, even things that are virtually impossible can be expected to happen."

Since I am an expert at Statistics (among other things), you have to realize that every spin has the same odds of hitting any number so the odds of hitting 100 different combinations of numbers is the same as hitting 1 number 100 times.

ETA: Sorry David. I just answered the question from the main page so didn't realize the context as it was in R&S. I assumed it was in the gambling section.

So yes, I would consider manipulation but only if it was the only 100 spins done. I assume that you are trying to draw a parallel with the creation of the Universe. In that case, this is not a valid parallel since given enough time, there is extremely high probability that you can get the same number 100 times in a row.

It's about probability, not random chance.

Plus, there are many factors that contribute to probability:

How fast you spin the wheel, material the wheel is made out of, friction, etc.

Yup random chance.

Do you still see Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Titch?

Oh look, it's dull dave d with his straw man parade.