Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ward
From: ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward)
Newsgroups: net.bio,net.origins,net.sci
Subject: Re: The missing step -- self-reproducing organisms
Message-ID: <1274@hao.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Nov-84 15:04:16 EST
Article-I.D.: hao.1274
Posted: Sat Nov 24 15:04:16 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 09:11:50 EST
References: gatech.10770 <3469@ecsvax.UUCP> <10810@gatech.UUCP> <1262@hao.UUCP>, <474@uwmacc.UUCP> <812@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 25

>    I think the concept that everyone is trying to get at here is this:
>
>If an event has a probability of occuring that is greater than zero, and there
>are an infinite number of attempts at it, then the probability that it will
>eventually occur is indeed 1, no matter how small the probability that it will
>happen on a given attempt. The only assumption needed here is that time
>goes on forever (and I'm not going to debate that here, I take that as a given).

The relevence of this argument to the question at hand rests
with the assumption that time goes on forever.  Since there is
no evidence that this is so, to make such an assumption is little
more than a religious belief. 

Even if one were to assume that time goes on forever, there is
no evidence that an infinite amount of time has already passed,
and so the argument as a proof that the probability of life arising
by this point in the life of a universe is invalid.
-- 
"The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct."

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307