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

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

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

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.

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.

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

flight uses less energy than walking if you are built right

but i don't see a t-rex flying

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.

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

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.

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

here is a question

and yes i do know the answer to it


why do we shake hands