Probability of Life Arising Calculations

In case anybody was curious, this is what it looks like when someone abandons evidentiary argumentation and instead substitutes their own prejudices.Before you start basing arguments on so-called "common sense", maybe you should stop and think about where common sense comes from, and why things that seem so "commonsensical" to you might seem outright wrong or dumb to another, like this: Now, see, here's where my common sense wonders why you have a problem with this. When you see one thing that is malleable - life - and another that is not - the laws of physics, etc - it shouldn't be messy in the least to determine which shaped the other.The cup shapes the water; the water does not shape the cup. Like I said, its common sense to me, but then, I don't go around substuting "common sense" for rigorous argumentation, like you seem to do. It's .8 AU wide - 8/10's as wide as the distance from the Earth to the Sun. And you think it's unlikely that a planet would form somewhere within that distance?Just to put in in perspective, there's two whole planets within .8 AU of the Sun.So, surprise. Since life on Earth was shaped by the conditions it found itself in, if those conditions had been different, it turns out that life would wind up being shaped differently.What a truly shocking revelation. You might be interested to know that if you pour water from a cup of one shape into a cup of another, the water changes shape. Wow!I'm sorry, was that sarcastic? My bad.AbE: Ok, now I see that that actually was my bad - no sarcasm this time. I see that I misinterpreted the tone of your post. I do apologize.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-18-2004 04:02 PM

No reason for you to feel stupid. It's my own nomenclature, not any kind of commonly-used abbreviation here. Most people append "added by edit" when they add substantial, post-changing remarks; I'm just too lazy to type it out. You're quite right, and it was my own carelessness that caused me to miss that point in your post. I do hope you'll excuse my bombastic reply.

Because they're not in the Bible?When you say "creationists", to whom are you referring? Maybe the better question is, to whom are you not referring? People who believe that evolution is the most accurate scientific description of the history of life on Earth? Or do you just mean to exclude people who have no belief in God?You seem fairly open- and science-minded, which leads me to believe you're either identifying as creationist by mistake (or by a definition much more general than that employed around here) or are that rarest of breeds; a creationist who actually understands the theory he opposes. That should be interesting; we've been waiting for someone like you for a while.