Scientist: Calculations Prove Life Began in Comet - Yahoo! News Did the building blocks of life come from a comet, and not develop on Earth?
He sounds like a quack to me. Then again, a "trillion times more likely" is still too small a number to defeat the 1 in 10 to 100 billionth power of life spontaneously generating at all (See Macro. vs. Micro.).
So instead of picking apart his case you dismiss him as a "quack"? How about critiquing the points that he makes and backing up your argument with empirically proven data? He actually says "one trillion trillion". How does one come to "1 in 10 to 100 billionth power" for a number?
A trillion trillion..... Is he sure it's not a trillion trillion and one? Seriously... And I believe based on the trillion trillion remark that "quack" is a good way to describe him. I don't even want to read the rest of the article.
A "trillion trillion" is an actual number: Names of big numbers (was Re: Enlightenment) - rec.arts.sf.fandom | Google Grupper It's 10, which is called by the U.S. & scientific community a "septendecillion"; and it is also known as a "nonillion" in other countries. A "trillion trillion" is easier to absorb by the layman. Now that I had explained that it is a real number, did I help you overcome your objection to the man? Now that you know that there is such a concept as a "trillion trillion" (and you know its exponential value and names), would you think it would be fair to go back and read the rest of the article?
I know that it's a number. I just find it very hard to believe that his statement isn't exaggerated. If he's so sure about it then I'd like to see him put a penny down on a trillion trillion to one odds. A lot of "scientific" time frames end up being huge unbelievable numbers. It just gets tiring reading through them.
Then, don't you think that it would be fair to at least contact him and ask him how he had come to that number? I'm sure that he would be happy to explain it to you. Here is his email: [email protected] I agree that science involves a lot of numbers, but they hold the easiest (yet plausible) path to discovery. You must admit that it is more honest to ask how he had come to the mathematical conclusions than to just dismiss it because one doesn't understand it, yes?
It's more a matter of dismissing it because there are few things I could care less about that organisms on a comet.
No offense intended, but if you didn't care about the topic of organisms on a comet, then why did you chime in the topic?
Since you didn't read it Andrew, I will offer a summary: One group of scientist says there is absolutely no way the building blocks of dna could survive long enough to evolve on Earth so it must have came from outerspace. Another group of scientist say there is almost absolutely no way the building blocks of dna could survive in outerspace so it must have happened on earth. Neither group can offer any proof to their theory and both groups consider their theory scientific fact. .....Ah, the theory du juor of evolution....
