And problem is with these anti-abiogenesis assertions is that realistically speaking we don't have enough information about the specifics of the early environments that enabled abiogenesis to occur. So while the numbers the fundies give out may even add up, the numbers aren't valid because we don't know all the variables that were involved, much less know precise numbers that should be assigned TO those variables. Therefore a truly accurate calculation of the odds of abiogenesis can't really be done by anybody.I even trust his calculus on that.

So, again for Bo's benefit, we'll point out what's happened and the possibilities of how it happened. The chances of life appearing on Earth are 100%. We know that because life is here. There's four potential possible ways for that to have happened:

1 - Natural development of life via already existing processes, the short version we call "abiogenesis".

2 - Goddidit with magic.

3 - Aliens.

4 - An unknown fourth option which nobody has considered since nobody's thought it up yet.

So far however there's only evidence of one of these. And that would be option 1, abiogenesis. For reasons explained to Bo and the rest of the fundies a multitude of times.

By the way, Bohart? The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

113,921 - 113,940of 222,920 Comments Last updatedSunday Oct 8