Did Life Start in a Comet?

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Doc, Aug 21, 2007.

  1. Doc

    Doc Trust me, I'm The Doctor. V.I.P.

  2. SimplyGenius

    SimplyGenius Registered Member

    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.).
  3. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    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?

  4. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    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.
  5. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    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?
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2007
  6. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    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.
  7. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    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?
  8. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    It's more a matter of dismissing it because there are few things I could care less about that organisms on a comet. :D
  9. maledoro

    maledoro Strange Visitor

    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?
  10. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    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....

Share This Page