This is exactly why your comment wasn't ignored and never would have been. You misrepresented my argument totally and now you have the sheer idiocy to conflate my 'example' with my saying life was an inevitable product of a series of chemical reactions. Until you learn to at least read what was said without misrepresenting it, don't expect a reasonable response from me.
You do realize that what you post persists in time, right?
To put it simply, life was the product of an inevitable series of chemical reactions that themselves were inevitable.
inevitable - impossible to avoid or prevent, sure to happen
I objected to the certainty with which you discussed life coming to exist.
Let's just look at one simple non-organic molecule as an example. Water has the chemical formula H2O. When two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen meet, they may or may not form water but over 1 billion years it is inevitable they do (in the same geometric configuration). It would be 'miraculous' had they never met to form water just as it would be 'miraculous' had life never formed.
Your response, in which if you had suggested at this point you meant only that life on Earth had P = 1 we'd have been done. That must not have been your argument, and you make it clear that you're extending this idea to other likely regions (Earthlike environments, to be as hospitable as possible to you.)
miraculous - occurring via an event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin
Again, reinforcing the certainty in another way. I object in the exact same way as you haven't addressed what I wrote at all.
I figured you might be unable to understand the concept because it requires some thinking. The example shows that as Hydrogen and Oxygen will inevitably meet to form water, the necessary chemicals for life will inevitably meet and form life (perhaps many times). Just for the hell of it, why don't you list the relative abundance of chemical elements present in the universe, the atmosphere and the Earth and compare them to the ones necessary for life as we know it then please tell me how it wasn't inevitable and do so without using an appeal to emotion or uncommon sense.
Insults and repetition.
There was no misrepresentation of what you said. My objection was perfectly reasonable. I'm also still waiting on the quotations showing that I was appealing to emotion and using uncommon sense.
My argument:
Certainty about events with unknown probabilities is no better from an atheist than a creationist.
We don't entirely understand how life came to be on Earth at this point, though we have a plausible mechanism for it. We also only have one case of life's existence to use as an example at this point, so it may or may not have occurred due to unlikely events (or it may have been delayed in its occurrence due to the lack of likely events occurring.) In other words, life may have started much earlier or later than it would have on a similar planet. Because of this uncertainty, saying that life is inevitable is wrongheaded, even though I personally believe that it is likely a relatively common phenomenon in the universe.
