Re: Ool - out at first base?

On 12/13/24 5:37 PM, MarkE wrote:

On 14/12/2024 4:19 am, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:51:36 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:

[...]
In summary the argument is: if a hypothesised little warm pond (or
thermal vent, etc) has virtually zero chance of producing this
protocell, then no amount of ponds and planets will help:
>
P(OoL) = N_ponds x N_planets x P(protocell) x P(post-protocell)
>
If P(protocell) -> 0, then P(OoL) -> 0
>
Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that P(protocell) -> 0, but
would you agree with the logic of the argument?
>

Logic is worthless absent data, and can prove (or disprove)
nothing. Your argument is as valid as that of the Fermi
"Paradox" or arguments regarding the number of angels that
can dance on a pinpoint; i.e., of zero value without data.
So again, please provide the mathematical calculations which
support your assertions. In detail, please, with error bars.

>

 You're avoiding the question. Establishing the overall logic and assumptions of a hypothesis is sensible before investing in the heavy lifting of numerically testing it.

What you call logic is, in fact, error. You are relying on the false assumption that "unknown" = "impossible".
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell