I, like Buddhasystem, have no idea where that comment came from. But, nevertheless, I would like to address it, even if it's off-topic.
Originally posted by MatyasWhy is it so difficult for you to accept that life may be far more prolific than we originally thought?
I (speaking only for myself) have no idea how prolific life is in our galaxy or universe.
But I do know, according to our best scientific knowledge (and we can know this pretty good), that all Life on Earth is related. This means that on
our home -- this garden of virility where life has every chance to thrive -- Life has established itself once.
Like all mysteries, let's take that for what it's worth.
1: Perhaps Life is unlikely to thrive and we are an exception.
2: Perhaps Life is likely to thrive and one strain of life (and I'm not even talkin' phylums here) eats up all the other strains. (Not likely for,
I hope, are obvious reasons.)
3: Perhaps Life is likely to thrive but it hasn't because 5 billions years isn't enough time for Life to establish itseolf on a planet more than
Since all Life on Earth is related, and we are told by the "experts" that the universe is about 15 billion years old, you might guess that I'd lean
But, I am not convinced that the universe is "15 billion years old". That assertion, on it's face (and for too many reasons to get into in this
thread), seems absurd to me.
I'll be happy to get a discussion of that in another thread should one of us care to start it.
EDIT: Look below.
[edit on 14-1-2008 by Tuning Spork]