i will put it this way a bunch of chemicals did not get together one day and decide to make a living cell

life is not an accident

There we go. A decent point for metaphysical differentiation. I'm "a religious nut" even if I'm no theist, but that's in part because I *believe* life arose through chance. The Fundamental 50-50 Bet is Existance vs. Non-existance. We won the bet, which seems to be something worth a fair amount of thought...

if life was an accident then why can't we repeat it

we can put all the pieces together but we can't make it live

I have to admit that the idea of life arising by chance to me seems completely unbelievable by any stretch of the immagination.

Honestly, i think there would be more chance of a ferari sports car magically forming itself after you dumped a pile of crushed cars on the ground! What are the chances of that happening? zero.

Yes i know the sports car does not have environmental pressures/opportunity to guide it's development, but still i feel it is a fair comparison.

actually everyone that believes that life was an accident is saying just that

you dump a bunch of chemicals into a pool of water and you get life

except that to get a living cell you have to have a membrane but you can't have a membrane without life

I'm back to asking for more complete thoughts regardless of grammar & spelling. What is "that" here?

I believe the 'that' refers to environmental pressures/opportunities guiding lifes development.

sorry i used the wrong quote the above quote is what that is

The environmental pressures/opportunities guiding development is the basis of the evolutionist argument. but the ferari example refers to the probability of it starting off. It is the life starting part that is the main achillies heel of evolution.

unless you throw in god or a super intellegence whatever

Also you have certain levels of development in evolution which seem to happen with no natural 'reason'. Natural 'reason' Meaning the natural pressures/oppertunities affecting the development of life forms.

i wonder if kyro is even paying attention to this thread anymore

If i was him,,, i wouldn't!

I just thought of a good example of why evolution dousn't explain it all...

I can understand the logic of creatures moving from the sea to the land, a gradual development where creatures better suited to surviving on land have a natural cause to develop in that direction.

Also i can understand how one creature that has a superior flight capability than another has a natural cause to develop in that direction too. However, how the hell does flying begin in the first place? their is no natural cause for it since their are no creatures flying that can be better or worse at it?? There is no gradual route to flight like their is from sea to land. You have to somehow magically gain some kind of flight advantage in order to gain the natural cause. Kind of like an evolutionary catch 22!

what i can imagine, is creatures having a natural cause to be better jumpers and climbers. Better jumpers would even have a natural cause to develop light bone structures. But still where do you begin the natural cause for better flight???

flight uses less energy than walking if you are built right

but i don't see a t-rex flying

Yes there are all kinds of advantages to flight once you have it in play. But what i am wondering, is how does flight actually start? what is the natural cause to start flight?

My above examples of jumping and climbing have natural causes that lead to better jumping and climbing... but i mean even a mutation providing some kind of superior elevating ability is not going to encourage flight. because limbs would still be the primary natural cause.

See, we have the general idea of how to form DNA. We could "theoretically" do so. However, we can not recreate the process that started life originally. It requires too much energy, and without fusion i dont see us doing anything like it anytime soon. That process did purely happen by chance, one of two things happened.
A)Huge solar storm hitting our planet while its magnetic shiels were not fully developed. This is a widely supported theory, and has been generally proven, because there is protocell like organisms that keep poping up in the hotest and most inhospitable places in the world.

B)Some super actually *created* us. I dont support this theory largely on the basis of paranio. What would such a powerful being want with us?

Flying developed most likely from the absence of large bodies of land, and/or the growth of trees that became inclimable.

with the exemption of insects and one lizard you are right all other flying animals have given up use of the front limbs for walking or at least walking well as in the case of bats

the key word in all of this is cell you can't have life without a cell and you cant have a cell without life



to give us a chance at life

i haven't wanted to do this but i remember what my first thought was

i had it the day i was born "SO THIS IS LIFE!!!"

ok now all of you can call me crazy but this means that there was something before life and it isn't considered to be life


on the flight thing i forgot about a snake that glides too

Yes yes yes,,, buuuuut how did flying get off the ground initially in the first place?

First, assuming that by law we mean laws made by humans to govern human activities:

"How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

A law doesn't rule, people enforcing a law rule. Laws are simply sets of enumerated restrictions with penalties attached, and "breaking" a law means that the society you are in has agreed that you will suffer a penalty for your actions.

That might sound like a narrow definition, but it is really quite expansive in application. For instance, we have laws that restrict people's ability to freely kill or steal, and if they do those things we impose a penalty (incarceration or death). But take any kind of law. Break a parking law and you are subject to a fine. Break a contract law and it is the same. Break a moral law and (some believe) you will be punished in the afterlife. So we have a series of restrictions with penalties attached.

Note: I think restrictions are a good thing. We do not want everyone to be free to kill whenever they like. But call a spade a spade. I'm also a lawyer, so this whole topic is close to home

But for a law to be effective, penalties must actually be followed through. For a short time, the threat of a penalty will keep people following laws even if there is no penalty... for just as long as people still believe there is a penalty attached. But if city governments stopped issuing parking tickets, after a while no one would follow parking signs. A "law" that isn't enforced isn't really a law at all, it is just something that looks like a law, it is law-ish.

A UN resolution is another good example. They look a lot like laws. They have code sections and are ratified and have most of the trappings of a law. But they have no enforcement. With no penalty, nations break UN "laws" whenever it is convenient. The only time a UN resolution is effective is when it is attached to economic sanctions or the deployment of troops.

Going back to the original question, humans don't "execute" laws, they enforce the penalties. If no one enforces the penalty, the law doesn't exist. It goes from being a restriction on activity to... a suggestion. A monologue on suggested restrictions or courses of action. But because it doesn't actually restrict activity, it is not really a true law.

i agree here in waco the police do not enforce stopping at red lights

i got it straight from a waco officer that he would rather clean up the accident so that he can do something else besides feel out the paper work for a traffic ticket

it has gotten so bad that the city is now putting up signs asking people not to run red lights

flying may have gotten started not by getting off of the ground but getting out of the trees

that is what the gliders are doing it for

I find all of law enforcement quite a funny principal. They use one of the most advaced tricks in the psychology book. The term is random quantity negative reinforcement. Something that pretty makes sure crime stays low. Now we will never stop the real criminals, those will always happen, that why we have to police. But, the average citizen is actually in fear of breaking the law, even though their chances of being caught at breaking one of the lesser laws are low enough for them to escape clean.

here is a question

and yes i do know the answer to it


why do we shake hands