(August 14, 2017 at 4:20 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Thing is, it does make it very easy, particularly in that the alternative -no organic chemistry- makes life like ours -impossible-. There's a fairly large disparity between "impossible" and "currently existent". You wouldn;t consider that a measure of ease?
I already asked, but I'll ask again...what metrics are you using, what metrics are you hoping to see this statement addressed in reference to?
Maybe your are correct and our different positions have to do with the use of the word "easy".
As for me, reading the word in the context in which Brian was using it, I assumed it was being used similarly to our everyday usage in English.
Consequently, to say something is "easy" to do or "it happens easily", then at least somebody should be able to do it or show that it happens such that we can observe it (even that gives way more leeway than normal usage of the word. For example, I think most, if not all, would consider the statement "It is easy for humans to run 100m in 9.58 seconds." as false based on everyday usage of "easy" in English. Even though one person has done it, it wasn't "easy" as he had to train very hard to do it and cannot repeat it regularly.) So if scientists have not been able to produce life from non life via naturalistic mechanisms in the lab or show that it happens such that we can observe it, how can it be construed as being "easy"?
That is where I am coming from.
