Well obviously, Ben's none too slow on the uptake.

[ZOMBIE USER 12759]

For a janitor, Ben sure knows a lot of interesting things. The combined gas law equation, for instance. (remember the fire extinguisher gag?) Now he goes and busts out the biology and philosophy on us! I'm glad to see that the old boy has a good head on his shoulders, but why is he a janitor? He should at least be a salesclerk or something! Actually, if he never finished/entered college he should go and do so... He's obviously not a janitor because he's dumb.

[ZOMBIE USER 12293]

Actually, I hate to throw this out, but I think Mr. Hayes couched that equation from an ancient earth movie called the Ninth Configuration... which I think is somehow an inspiration for Petey's current problems in sanity. I'd seek conformation, but that involves way more effort than I'm willing to put out.

[RHJunior]

Well, no, I didn't get the equation from a movie. I found it on the internet, in several locations, while looking for another similar equation I had in an old college textbook. I went ahead with it because it served the same general purpose and used less text, actually.
The equation I was looking for presupposed 10^31 earths with oceans of pure L-amino acids recombining every second for one million years. I fail to recall at this late date whether the formula was for a single celled organism or the scientifically calculated minimum number of proteins needed to form a single celled organism (124. The smallest known number of different proteins in a real-life living species is around 390.)

But the probability came out to (I am working on old memory here) 1 in 10^37,500.... give or take a few hundred zeros.

Coincidentally, the established "bottom rung" for something to be considered statistically possible has been arbitrarily established at 1 in 10^50.

As to the other question-- "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"
*sigh.* For one thing there's a difference between being smart, and being *wise.* And, for another, as I can testify, a grab bag of learned information doesn't always add up to a career-applicable base of knowledge. In other words, there's a reason they call it TRIVIA.

[Chaser617]

*nods* I agree with RH, I have a large sum of knowledge pertaining to aircraft, but, will iever be in the areospace industry? No because one: I where glasses, adn can't fly anything for teh airforce, the best place to start really, and two: I'm horrible at math, thus eliminating the engineer option, but, I am very happy as a teacher

[Msd22000]

Putting in my 2 cents worth with Ralph and Chaser617. Unfortunately in the real world employers tend to look for little pieces of paper, like degrees or certifications, rather than the ability to do a job. To many bosses it doesn't matter that you are smart and you can do a job much better than someone else, all that matters is that you have the "formal education" or "career training". This has the unfortunate tendency to put people who can pass tests but not do the job into positions of responsiblity. Unfortunately unions have had the tendency to only make this problem worse. While they tend to do a good job with colective barganing too many of them stick their noses into how the job is done. The end result is situations where everybody sits around on their duff doing nothing while waiting for the person who is "qualified" to perform a trivial task, like turning off a circuit breaker, to show up. This tendancy also keeps people who could do a job just fine out of certain jobs if they have difficulty with some aspect of the formal training, even if they will never use that part of the training in the real world.

[Archae99]

Well, no, I didn't get the equation from a movie. I found it on the internet, in several locations, while looking for another similar equation I had in an old college textbook.

Where on the Internet did you find it?

The Institute for Creation "Research?"

Bob Jones "University?"

Kent Hovind?

[Kanaeda Kuonji]

Well, no, I didn't get the equation from a movie. I found it on the internet, in several locations, while looking for another similar equation I had in an old college textbook.

Where on the Internet did you find it?

The Institute for Creation "Research?"

Bob Jones "University?"

Kent Hovind?

You're from Skepticfriends.org, aren't you? Only one thing to do:

*leaps faithfully onto the grenade*

This is just a fictional story. No need to worry about religious implications. Stop the worrying, love the comic

[Archae99]

Well, no, I didn't get the equation from a movie. I found it on the internet, in several locations, while looking for another similar equation I had in an old college textbook.

Where on the Internet did you find it?

The Institute for Creation "Research?"

Bob Jones "University?"

Kent Hovind?

You're from Skepticfriends.org, aren't you?

Never heard of them.

[ZOMBIE USER 12759]

LA LA LA lets all yell and scream.... AIIIEEEEEE!!!! MUHUHAHAHAHAH I THINK I'M COOL BECAUSE I MAKE FUN OF PEOPLE IN CYBERSPACE!!!!!!

Jeez, lighten up everybody... It's a comic strip. Why get offended when somebody else expresses their opinion? Heck, it's free, what do you care?

[DracoDei]

Hmmm... at first I thought the plot had a small hole in it (the plot NOT the calculation). Because if Petey was programmed against even considering that there might be an afterlife, then that would mean he would be convinced beyond all reasoning with, beyond all doubt, that their was no afterlife(or reincarnation, if that qualifies as being a seperate concept). This would mean that death=oblivion, and the last time I checked even atheists have ethics. In fact a complete end to conciousness or existants is much scarier (and therefore worse to inflict upon someone in an untimely fashion) than many religions would say happens to the average joe 'non-beleiver' (in quotes because it is a generic term in this context).

But then it occured to me that maybe Petey is programed against even taking into account or having any awareness of what happens after death. He has no hypotheses about it and thus no sureness or unsureness. It is a beyond an "unknown" it is perminantly stuck in the realm of "never thought about to know their was something not to know". In this case the circuit should interupt a question about "What is the state of awareness of a mind after all life functions of that organism have ceased?" just as much as the one Ben asked. The correct answer for an atheist would be "The is no awareness".

This would lead to the conclusion that Ben might not have fully understood things but arrived at a solution close enough in its broad outline to guide actions correctly.

Or is it my reasoning that is flawed? I would welcome comments.

P.S. For the record I am a Christian.