I'm just experimenting. I hate the word "blog" and am fascinated with how the net seems to nurture *everyone's* vanity.
dedicated to Evil Stormbringer and Wheeloffire
Published on January 17, 2007 By Philocthetes In Off-Topic
Evil did me right by starting his own thread on the "what's a thief" question. But a few posts later in that Grammar nazi sprawl thread, QuietlyObserving says "If we are to be a society founded on the Rule of Law, it would be prudent to maintain a healthy respect for language and the meaning of words, lest we slip into a dictatorship of unelected Judges."

This gives me a painfully beautiful opportunity to start a sister thread to Evil's, and ask you all to sink your fangs, fingers, etc., into the basic question "How does a law rule without a human to interpret and/or execute it?"

That's my latest hasty attempt at a longstanding interest in the gov't-of-law-and-not-men notion that's very popular here in the US. I've also known a few linguists and flirted with other philosphies enough to be taken aback by anyone who has too much certainty about the meaning of a particular word or phrase.

Unless you're a minor with parents who don't want you seeing PG-13 movies (I know we have some sharp youth out there, just want to respect your folks), I suggest finding and playing fword.wav before you finish a reply here.
Comments (Page 36)
44 PagesFirst 34 35 36 37 38  Last
on Feb 12, 2007
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
on Feb 12, 2007
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...
on Feb 12, 2007
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
on Feb 12, 2007
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...


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.
on Feb 12, 2007
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

on Feb 12, 2007
actually everyone that believes that life was an accident is saying just that


I'm back to asking for more complete thoughts regardless of grammar & spelling. What is "that" here?
on Feb 12, 2007
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.
on Feb 12, 2007
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!



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


on Feb 12, 2007
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.
on Feb 12, 2007
It is the life starting part that is the main achillies heel of evolution.



unless you throw in god or a super intellegence whatever
on Feb 12, 2007
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.
on Feb 12, 2007
i wonder if kyro is even paying attention to this thread anymore
on Feb 12, 2007
i wonder if kyro is even paying attention to this thread anymore


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

on Feb 12, 2007
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???
on Feb 12, 2007
flight uses less energy than walking if you are built right

but i don't see a t-rex flying
44 PagesFirst 34 35 36 37 38  Last