RE: Life is not improbable.
April 9, 2014 at 2:34 pm
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2014 at 2:37 pm by Chas.)
(April 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Heywood Wrote:(April 9, 2014 at 12:17 pm)Chas Wrote: You don't seem to know the difference between countable and uncountable infinities.
It is assumed that when talking about white balls/red balls, we are talking about countable infinities, the infinity of the natural numbers.
The infinity you are talking about with the rays is an uncountable infinity, the infinity of the continuum. That infinity is larger.
pay attention mash potato brains...were way beyond marbles....were talking about magical dice now.
BlowJob, go fuck yourself. I answered your post - try being constructive instead of being a total douche bag.
![[Image: coffeedrinker.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.acbeddoe.com%2Fphotos%2Fpublic%2Fcoffeedrinker.gif)
(April 9, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Heywood Wrote:(April 9, 2014 at 12:37 pm)archangle Wrote: real simple.
Look at the PT.
Look at life as we know it.
Look at where "carbon" and 'water" are formed. Look at the temperatures they can interact with each other and "stuff" around them.
These interactions are less than 10% of the known universe.
Your sample size of one does not fit observation. Even at the most basic level of "how do we know". There is more than one "place" these interactions can take place.
If its as simple as combining water and carbon they should have already been able to replicate it in the lab. It appears that abiogenesis requires more than just the coming together of ingredients. It requires a recipe.
The existence of water, wheat, salt, and yeast, make the existence of bread more likely.....but it certainly doesn't guarantee it.
You left out all the other chemicals, but most importantly, you forget millions of years and the size of the earth.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.