Lance_Granger

Your use of anthropomorphism is incorrect. Yes I do compare the Earth to humans but im not "humanizing" the Earth, "saying it stands up right, has human personalities and is a sentient being". I'm just saying with all of the spheres working together as a system, that system, "in my opinion" appears to be an organism. I used humans as a comparison because it is the most familiar organism to the average person. You did makes some great points tell the dino parts. So thank you for actually putting effort into your reply. Now as far as only engaging people who agree with me, that another generalization. If anything I have been trying to push this convo from all sides. But most just come on here and say," that all wrong" and they don't take the time to explain anything. You actually took some time to explain where your coming from with good examples. I have no problem talking about this to anyone, but this tactic of "punch n' run" that most people use on here is counter productive and pointless. Thank you for actually participating.

Anyone else have any other thoughts. I'm sure we can still have a good conversation here.

ok ty, examples?

Great point! That's why I tried very hard to back up why I use the word 'living" in the article. Ty btw!

Great comments Sunshaker. Ty I feel the same way. Please take the poll at the top of the page if you haven't already. Ty for your comments Davidivad!!

Please take this poll!!

To bad, you were actually making some good points.

So if the Earth, through so massive tectonic event blasted Mt Everest into space. Would you consider that reproduction. Think about it before you answer.

Sorry Sensei, the whole Star core thing was just a reference. it has caused some confusion, but it is in no way the focus of the Article. I understand the confusion.

I did answer the wart question, read back. Yes the mountain does grow and eventually dies through tectonics. Thats all in the article too. The next question is do you think that there has to be an whole other 'Planet" in order for Earth to reproduce?

So are saying that a new life form must, "leave is mother" to be considered "alive"? Why would I do that, when this is how I think. How do you think?

I have no issue with backing up what I say. I was asking for your opinion as to what reproduction is, as in the nuts and bolts and function of reproduction. That way I could approach my response correctly. No I don't think a wort is a result of human reproduction. It is not a copy of a human. A mountain is a "copy" of the Earth, it has all of the same make up, life cycle and spheres the Earth does. Just much smaller and shorter. I agree with you that Life is hard to define. Kind of the point to the article to begin with.

I would also like examples of how im "distorting or redifining words" so that I have the chance to back up what I say

Sigh..... again I was hoping for something with substance not bad humor. Again, please explain how something like a mountain isn't a reproduction of the Earth? Please try to explain your though, if you can't that fine just say so and we can move on. Not pushing anything, I just didn't see the point of reposting the entire 2000+ word article to a blog site. I felt it would be much easier to reference it. Maybe someone should just ask next time rather then just assume the worst.

Unless it developed systems that could provide energy for it like the spheres of the Earth do.

Ok that's a very basic explanation of reproduction and with it you would spawn another debate and whether or the new Earth has to be orbiting anything, being that obit and the formation of the solar system is a product of the Sun and not Earth. I was hoping for a more "nuts and bolts" explanation of reproduction. No worries. The Gaia hypothesis is a great explanation as well.

Explain how its not. Actually just explain what you consider reproduction

I did talk about reproduction in the article

q I would love to discuss it further with you, but wouldn't you rather read the whole article so you know what the full idea is first. That would answer most of your questions and then i could go into further detail if you need me to. Hope that makes sence

The post is just the first part of the whole article. You would need to read the whole article so see where I back up my thoughts. You would have to read the whole article to see how I back up my thoughts. But they deleted the link to the article. Here is the link if you want to read more. http://lancegranger.hubpages.com/hub/Earth-is-a-Living-Organism

This is just a part of a larger article. I cant post the article link but It is posted in the comments if you are interested in reading more. How I Look at the Earth Earth is not just a floating rock in space, it is a living organism. Like all organisms on our planet, Earth need water, air, energy from the sun and symbiotic lifeforms living within it to survive. In order to survive all live on Earth must have water, air, energy from the sun, reproduce and have other symbiotic lifeforms living inside it. The planet Earth is no different and to start off with I should explain where this idea came from. I was sitting in geography class about two years ago and my instructor started talking about the "Star Core Theory". Not many people know what the Star Core theory is and finding information on it on the internet is very hard so I will summarize it the best I can. The Star Core Theory is an idea that the center of the Earth is actually a star, a very small star. The idea is that there is a huge nuclear reactor in the center of the Earth, (much like a star), that is constantly generating heat that keeps that Earths mantel's melting and cooling eventually resulting in tectonics on the surface. This is the simplest way to explain Star core, if you want more information about it you can try to find it on the net but good luck because it is not easy....... This is just a part of a larger article. I cant post the article link but It is posted in the comments if you are interested in reading more.