Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I think their argument is that the actual emergence of life, (abiogenetically), can be said to be so rare, that it means that the level of confidence of finding it elsewhere is extremely low ... to the point that one cannot predict the emergence (by the same means), elsewhere.
|
They have no way of proving that assertion at all. How do they know if abiogenesis is rare. What is the empirical basis for their assumption???. Their whole paper is not predicting anything....all it's doing is going over the same old, tired arguments for the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Hell, given their assumptions, we shouldn't even be here ourselves. Which just goes to show you how nonsensical their arguments actually are. It's quite simple to apply their reasoning and statistical methods on a global scale and that would mean no life should be present anywhere.
What it means is that they're going to have to explain our own presence and unless they have a very convincing and plausible explanation, then they're going to have to concede that they don't know at all and then the religious element will be bound to raise its "solution" to the problem eventually.
Back to square one.