The fish darwin symbol... N!rmpbcBiyXn8GRV.z60~gpz0J#a0P_LaB.sV 857

Umm I for one am lost why Silk should consider that the chances of chemicals becoming life is so low that it could never have happened. OR following on from that:

"There would have to be an instant in time where nothing suddenly became life, and this life would have had to be the ancestor of all life on Earth: flora and fauna. I just cannot accept this could result in what we see today - it's just too far-fetched."

So it is apparently so far fetched as to be impossible that "nothing" should become life, that life should become single celled organisms and that those should diversify into being all life on eart today over a period of some 3-5 billion years.

However it is, it seems, much more likely that nothing should become a fully fledged sentient being in the twinkling of an eye. A being with the power to create life from nothing not even as single celled enbreasties, but as fully formed organisms complete in every detail. Not only that but the same being should then set about creating every niche in the ecosystem with an organism to fill that niche and having complete the task he she or it then carefully erased all traces of itself and vanished ina puff of ectoplasm.

Did I miss anything out? Probably.

-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759