[freedumb2003]

My comment was intended to be a tongue-in-cheek response based more on the concept of "chance" and probability theory, not about your sacred TToE.

I apologize if I have blasphemed your religion.

The question and the comment remain. Do you understand TToE well enough to comment on it? Or are you just posing?

And I suppose TToE is a "religion" in the same way as those disciples of Physics and the blind fool Chemists -- and don't get me started on the dogma of Astronomy.

I mean, who do these scientists think they are?

[Thrusher]

The question and the comment remain. Do you understand TToE well enough to comment on it? Or are you just posing?

I have not made any comments about the Theory of Evolution on this thread. In fact, I do not discount the validity of the Theory of Evolution as a scientific principle. I have not and do not proclaim to be an evolutionary scientist of any kind.

My statement about the infinite Rubik's Cubes was in reference to Hoyle's comment about the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids.

And I suppose TToE is a "religion" in the same way as those disciples of Physics and the blind fool Chemists -- and don't get me started on the dogma of Astronomy.

My /sarc tag clearly indicated that I was joking.

[metmom]

The question and the comment remain. Do you understand TToE well enough to comment on it? Or are you just posing?

What about you? What are your qualifications to comment on the ToE? Your degree is in what?