Birth of Earth

[jsispat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pus

 

 

Doesn't sound much like magma, I ask again what is the difference between magma created in the crust and closer to the centre?

 

 

 

It's more that there's no evidence it's alive so there's no reason to assume that it is.

i already mentioned you that i am not so 100% qualified to reply these question but again this is my view that magma is not from core of earth it is manufactured in crust only . because i have seen cutted log with wax and i exactly cuted log fron wax portion it is not attached with core of log or tree

[Klaynos]

Just because something looks a tiny little bit like something else does not mean they are the same.

[jsispat]

Just because something looks a tiny little bit like something else does not mean they are the same.

sir you are right. but i must tell u that only one thing is not similar lot of other things are also similar that earth is like tree.

second thing acceration theory also seems very odd. if acceration theory is true than shape should be like tenis ball not having mountains or see.

i have no facility to prove it scietifically. can you assist me some where on this topic.sex point is strong point that can be watched now i am seeing wether there is sex transaction between planets and how plants make sex.

[Klaynos]

Accretion is certainly true for stars and we see planet forming disks around young stars. There's no mechanism which would allow for rock to suddenly burst into life in these disks.

 

There are not lots of similarities just some images of the layout of the earth look similar.

 

The mountains etc are formed in a different way to planet formation. We've got quite nice accurate models of this, plate tectonics....

[Edtharan]

can you tell me pls that what modren machines proves is earth has dead in core.

Seismographs. These measure the vibrations of the Earth. Sound is just vibrations in a medium. So these seismographs act like the reciever in a Ultrasound machine.

 

Then using the same knowledge of how sounds waves are effected by different materials, we can work out what materials the vibrations that have travelled through the core of the Earth have passed through.

 

We can determine the density, temperature, state of matter (solid liquid or gas), moments (if it is moving there will be a predictable distortion in the sound waves), and many other aspects. You can even determine where one material stops and another begins.

 

Vibration can give us a lot of information about an object.

 

So using such techniques we can determine the composition of the core of the Earth, and it is made of a solid iron inner core with a liquid iron outer core.

 

It is no more alive that the steel (an alloy of iron) in your car.

 

second thing acceration theory also seems very odd. if acceration theory is true than shape should be like tenis ball not having mountains or see.

Actually it is quite smooth (see my last post). If the Earth was shrunk down to the size of a tennis ball, then the largest height differences would be far smaller than any on a tennis ball. As I said in my last post, if you shrink the Earth to the size of a Basket ball (much larger than a tennis ball), then the bumps used to give a basketball its grip would be around the same height as the largest height differences of the Earth. So you are right, according to accretion the Earth should be fairly smooth, and it is.

 

The reason we have mountains is that the surface of the Earth is not all one piece and these pieces are able to move around.

 

When two pieces collide, one will slide on top and the other will be pushed under. This is because the crust of the Earth is not all the same. There is some lighter material that we call the Continental Crust and Heavier Material that we call the Oceanic Crust.

 

As the Oceanic Crust and Continental Crust is pushed around, the Oceanic Crusts will, being more dense, slid under the Continental Crust. However, and Continental Crust that is sitting on top of the Oceanic Crust that is sliding under the other Continental Crust will collide and accumulate together.

 

When these Continental Crusts collide the oceanic crust is still moving. This keeps the pressure on the continental crusts. This pressure has to be released some how and it is usually in the form of buckling. It is this buckling that we call mountains.

[jsispat]

Seismographs. These measure the vibrations of the Earth. Sound is just vibrations in a medium. So these seismographs act like the reciever in a Ultrasound machine.

 

Then using the same knowledge of how sounds waves are effected by different materials, we can work out what materials the vibrations that have travelled through the core of the Earth have passed through.

 

We can determine the density, temperature, state of matter (solid liquid or gas), moments (if it is moving there will be a predictable distortion in the sound waves), and many other aspects. You can even determine where one material stops and another begins.

 

Vibration can give us a lot of information about an object.

 

So using such techniques we can determine the composition of the core of the Earth, and it is made of a solid iron inner core with a liquid iron outer core.

 

It is no more alive that the steel (an alloy of iron) in your car.

 

 

Actually it is quite smooth (see my last post). If the Earth was shrunk down to the size of a tennis ball, then the largest height differences would be far smaller than any on a tennis ball. As I said in my last post, if you shrink the Earth to the size of a Basket ball (much larger than a tennis ball), then the bumps used to give a basketball its grip would be around the same height as the largest height differences of the Earth. So you are right, according to accretion the Earth should be fairly smooth, and it is.

 

The reason we have mountains is that the surface of the Earth is not all one piece and these pieces are able to move around.

 

When two pieces collide, one will slide on top and the other will be pushed under. This is because the crust of the Earth is not all the same. There is some lighter material that we call the Continental Crust and Heavier Material that we call the Oceanic Crust.

 

As the Oceanic Crust and Continental Crust is pushed around, the Oceanic Crusts will, being more dense, slid under the Continental Crust. However, and Continental Crust that is sitting on top of the Oceanic Crust that is sliding under the other Continental Crust will collide and accumulate together.

 

When these Continental Crusts collide the oceanic crust is still moving. This keeps the pressure on the continental crusts. This pressure has to be released some how and it is usually in the form of buckling. It is this buckling that we call mountains.

very honestly still i have too much faith on my theory.reg latest scientific theory it looks me very odd that how layers of iron and other things formed and pockets of minerals formed if earth is a dead rock it should be only one material if molted material seprated and cooled later. if material is molted in such a high temprature than how different different material can found in one planet.actually i have lack of scietifically facilities otherwise i have talent to prove that earth is living thing like tree and it formed also like tree from seed.

thanks for your cooperation. i realy thank ful to you.

 

Seismographs. These measure the vibrations of the Earth. Sound is just vibrations in a medium. So these seismographs act like the reciever in a Ultrasound machine.

 

Then using the same knowledge of how sounds waves are effected by different materials, we can work out what materials the vibrations that have travelled through the core of the Earth have passed through.

 

We can determine the density, temperature, state of matter (solid liquid or gas), moments (if it is moving there will be a predictable distortion in the sound waves), and many other aspects. You can even determine where one material stops and another begins.

 

Vibration can give us a lot of information about an object.

 

So using such techniques we can determine the composition of the core of the Earth, and it is made of a solid iron inner core with a liquid iron outer core.

 

It is no more alive that the steel (an alloy of iron) in your car.

 

 

Actually it is quite smooth (see my last post). If the Earth was shrunk down to the size of a tennis ball, then the largest height differences would be far smaller than any on a tennis ball. As I said in my last post, if you shrink the Earth to the size of a Basket ball (much larger than a tennis ball), then the bumps used to give a basketball its grip would be around the same height as the largest height differences of the Earth. So you are right, according to accretion the Earth should be fairly smooth, and it is.

 

The reason we have mountains is that the surface of the Earth is not all one piece and these pieces are able to move around.

 

When two pieces collide, one will slide on top and the other will be pushed under. This is because the crust of the Earth is not all the same. There is some lighter material that we call the Continental Crust and Heavier Material that we call the Oceanic Crust.

 

As the Oceanic Crust and Continental Crust is pushed around, the Oceanic Crusts will, being more dense, slid under the Continental Crust. However, and Continental Crust that is sitting on top of the Oceanic Crust that is sliding under the other Continental Crust will collide and accumulate together.

 

When these Continental Crusts collide the oceanic crust is still moving. This keeps the pressure on the continental crusts. This pressure has to be released some how and it is usually in the form of buckling. It is this buckling that we call mountains.

if latest scientific theory is true than pls tell me how different different pockets of minerals are there in one planet. how different different layers arise of iron and other of nickel and other of rocks.it means our planet is living thing and growing like tree and its birth if from seed or asteroid.

if earth is dead and formed throw acceration than composition of whole planet should be one and its shape also should be odd not like orange.

[Edtharan]

pls tell me how different different pockets of minerals are there in one planet.

Simple answer: "Turbulence". The more complex answer follows (and explains why turbulence is the reason):

 

Well different minerals have different Densities, Melting Temperatures, and many other factors. So in one case a mineral might melt, but a nearby mineral might still be solid. One might be more dense and the other less dense. The less dense will rise to the surface just like ice (which is less dense than water) will rise and float on water, even though they are made of the same stuff (H2O).

 

So differences in temperature in one location might have a mineral either solid or liquid. Differences in density might make parts of those areas sink lower or rise up.

 

This creates regions where certain minerals and elements will encounter different environments (pressures, temperatures nearby minerals and elements to react with, etc). These different environments mean that the results of matter in one location will be different from the results in another location.

 

So something like Iron might encounter sulphur and be come Iron(II) sulfide, where as the iron in another location might encounter oxygen and become Iron Oxide.

 

But why might the environments be different?

 

Well if an asteroid that originated near the sun hit Earth at one location, then it will have more heavier elements (like sulphur), but an asteroid that originated from further out (say the Oort cloud) hit the Earth, it will have more ices and lighter elements (like oxygen).

 

It was the gravity of the collapsing dust cloud, and the spinning disk that formed because of it, that formed the sun, the planets, asteroids comets, etc (the solar system), that sorted out the elements into masses and distributed them. However, it was not a completely ordered place and there was turbulence.

 

As the dust swirled around in this disk, the particles of the dust collided and stuck together, a bit like the dust bunnies that form under furniture. These Solar System Dust Bunnies grew bigger (just like the house hold variety does - and there was no one around to clean them up in the early solar system), and bigger.

 

Now all objects that have mass have a gravitational field. So these Obese Solar Dust Bunnies grew so big that they started pulling in more dust and even other Dust Bunnies. Eventually the gravity of the Dust Bunnies was so big that the stiffness of the dust was unable to support itself. These Dust Bunnies collapsed and formed Micro Meteorites.

 

these Micro Meteorites still have gravity, so they pulled in more stuff (dust, dust bunnies and micro meteorites) and grew bigger and got more massive so pulled in more and more stuff.

 

Eventually these grew so big that the speed that they pulled in the other stuff was so fast that when it hit it released that energy as heat, melting the dust. Welcome to the era of planetesimals.

 

The gravity from these planitisimals was enough to "stir" up the gasses, dust, dust bunnies, micro meteorites and even other planetisimals and send them to places all over the solar system. This is the Turbulence I was talking about.

 

The planetisimals collided and stuck together and eventually grew big enough to be classed as planets (as well as dwarf planets and plutoids :-p ).

 

There was actually many more of these planets in the early solar system than there are today. It is quite likely that one of these (about the size of Mars) was knocked out of place by another planet passing near by it, and sending it hurtling on a collision course with the forming Earth.

 

Now you don't have to worry about this doomsday planet hitting us because it already has. The debris kicked up form this collision was flung into orbit and eventually when through the same accretion that formed the planets and we now call it the Moon.

 

We know this because we have gone to the Moon and looked at the Moon rocks and they are remarkably similar to the Earth (if the Moon had formed elsewhere and been captured by the Earth, then the composition of the Moon would be very different from the Earth). There is one difference though. The Moon does not have much water in its rocks (unlike the Earth). If it had just formed around the Earth right from the start, its rocks would be identical to the Earth's rocks. The most plausible explanation is that something heated the Rocks so much that the Water broke down into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Which could be done by a planet the size of Mars hitting the Earth.

 

So we have objects from all over the Solar system careening around it. This means the composition of any two asteroids hitting Earth will likely be different. This means that the initial distribution of minerals will not be ordered and even. There will be pockets where an asteroid that was high in sulphur will have hit and there will be locations where asteroids high in oxygen (most like as water) will hit.

 

We now have, due to turbulence (and a long rambling post ) an explanation of why the distribution of minerals on a planet are clumped.

[jsispat]

Simple answer: "Turbulence". The more complex answer follows (and explains why turbulence is the reason):

 

Well different minerals have different Densities, Melting Temperatures, and many other factors. So in one case a mineral might melt, but a nearby mineral might still be solid. One might be more dense and the other less dense. The less dense will rise to the surface just like ice (which is less dense than water) will rise and float on water, even though they are made of the same stuff (H2O).

 

So differences in temperature in one location might have a mineral either solid or liquid. Differences in density might make parts of those areas sink lower or rise up.

 

This creates regions where certain minerals and elements will encounter different environments (pressures, temperatures nearby minerals and elements to react with, etc). These different environments mean that the results of matter in one location will be different from the results in another location.

 

So something like Iron might encounter sulphur and be come Iron(II) sulfide, where as the iron in another location might encounter oxygen and become Iron Oxide.

 

But why might the environments be different?

 

Well if an asteroid that originated near the sun hit Earth at one location, then it will have more heavier elements (like sulphur), but an asteroid that originated from further out (say the Oort cloud) hit the Earth, it will have more ices and lighter elements (like oxygen).

 

It was the gravity of the collapsing dust cloud, and the spinning disk that formed because of it, that formed the sun, the planets, asteroids comets, etc (the solar system), that sorted out the elements into masses and distributed them. However, it was not a completely ordered place and there was turbulence.

 

As the dust swirled around in this disk, the particles of the dust collided and stuck together, a bit like the dust bunnies that form under furniture. These Solar System Dust Bunnies grew bigger (just like the house hold variety does - and there was no one around to clean them up in the early solar system), and bigger.

 

Now all objects that have mass have a gravitational field. So these Obese Solar Dust Bunnies grew so big that they started pulling in more dust and even other Dust Bunnies. Eventually the gravity of the Dust Bunnies was so big that the stiffness of the dust was unable to support itself. These Dust Bunnies collapsed and formed Micro Meteorites.

 

these Micro Meteorites still have gravity, so they pulled in more stuff (dust, dust bunnies and micro meteorites) and grew bigger and got more massive so pulled in more and more stuff.

 

Eventually these grew so big that the speed that they pulled in the other stuff was so fast that when it hit it released that energy as heat, melting the dust. Welcome to the era of planetesimals.

 

The gravity from these planitisimals was enough to "stir" up the gasses, dust, dust bunnies, micro meteorites and even other planetisimals and send them to places all over the solar system. This is the Turbulence I was talking about.

 

The planetisimals collided and stuck together and eventually grew big enough to be classed as planets (as well as dwarf planets and plutoids :-p ).

 

There was actually many more of these planets in the early solar system than there are today. It is quite likely that one of these (about the size of Mars) was knocked out of place by another planet passing near by it, and sending it hurtling on a collision course with the forming Earth.

 

Now you don't have to worry about this doomsday planet hitting us because it already has. The debris kicked up form this collision was flung into orbit and eventually when through the same accretion that formed the planets and we now call it the Moon.

 

We know this because we have gone to the Moon and looked at the Moon rocks and they are remarkably similar to the Earth (if the Moon had formed elsewhere and been captured by the Earth, then the composition of the Moon would be very different from the Earth). There is one difference though. The Moon does not have much water in its rocks (unlike the Earth). If it had just formed around the Earth right from the start, its rocks would be identical to the Earth's rocks. The most plausible explanation is that something heated the Rocks so much that the Water broke down into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Which could be done by a planet the size of Mars hitting the Earth.

 

So we have objects from all over the Solar system careening around it. This means the composition of any two asteroids hitting Earth will likely be different. This means that the initial distribution of minerals will not be ordered and even. There will be pockets where an asteroid that was high in sulphur will have hit and there will be locations where asteroids high in oxygen (most like as water) will hit.

 

We now have, due to turbulence (and a long rambling post ) an explanation of why the distribution of minerals on a planet are clumped.

thanks for detailed reply but if you can spare just one hour for me . pls go to near the tree having wax and there should be also one slice of trunk or log cutted from both side and compare with earth may be possible that you can be little agree with me.

 

Accretion is certainly true for stars and we see planet forming disks around young stars. There's no mechanism which would allow for rock to suddenly burst into life in these disks.

 

There are not lots of similarities just some images of the layout of the earth look similar.

 

The mountains etc are formed in a different way to planet formation. We've got quite nice accurate models of this, plate tectonics....

thanks for reply but

if you can spare just one hour for me . pls go to near the tree having wax and there should be also one slice of trunk or log cutted from both side and compare with earth may be possible that you can be little agree with me.

[Edtharan]

thanks for detailed reply but if you can spare just one hour for me . pls go to near the tree having wax and there should be also one slice of trunk or log cutted from both side and compare with earth may be possible that you can be little agree with me

I understand what you are talking about. The way that sap oozes form a cut in the bark of a tree does resemble the flow of lava from a volcano. The layers of wood that make up a tree's trunk also resembles the layers that can form with sedimentation.

 

However, I also understand that just because something resembles something else does not make them the same. That is a bit of faulty logic called Equivocation.

 

The processes involved between tree rings and sedimentation layers are completely different. In trees the rings form are cells divide and then die off. In the spring there is more sunlight and so the tree has more energy to grow, more cells can divide and a wide ring is produced. then in Winter when the tree has less sunlight to provide energy form growth (or none at all if the tree is deciduous), then very few cells divide and you get a dense ring.

 

The sedimentation layers you see in the rocks of Earth are caused by dirt and clay particles getting swept up in water. When the water slows down these particles can fall out of the water and settle on the bottom of the river.

 

Over time these build up and as the type of particles swept up changes (due to the river cutting through a different part of the landscape, or a flood, or an ice age, etc) then a different layer gets deposited.

 

Over time these layers get compressed by the layers above them and they harden into rocks.

 

So as you can see, very different processes (one if from division and growth the other from deposition). Because the processes by which they pattern comes about (layers) are very different, you can not just point to one and say that because the patter is similar then they must be the same thing.

 

Tree rings are deposited by a chemical reaction (the growth and metabolism of a tree), where as the sediment was deposited by mechanical forces (erosion and fluid dynamics).

 

This is why Equivocation is not a a good argument.

 

If you were to look at the processes that produced the patterns and the processes were the same, then you would be right in saying that they were the same.

 

So no, even though the layers in a tree look like the layers in the Earth, because the processes that led them to be arranged like that are so completely different, I can't agree with you (except in that they only look like each other).

[jsispat]

I understand what you are talking about. The way that sap oozes form a cut in the bark of a tree does resemble the flow of lava from a volcano. The layers of wood that make up a tree's trunk also resembles the layers that can form with sedimentation.

 

However, I also understand that just because something resembles something else does not make them the same. That is a bit of faulty logic called Equivocation.

 

The processes involved between tree rings and sedimentation layers are completely different. In trees the rings form are cells divide and then die off. In the spring there is more sunlight and so the tree has more energy to grow, more cells can divide and a wide ring is produced. then in Winter when the tree has less sunlight to provide energy form growth (or none at all if the tree is deciduous), then very few cells divide and you get a dense ring.

 

The sedimentation layers you see in the rocks of Earth are caused by dirt and clay particles getting swept up in water. When the water slows down these particles can fall out of the water and settle on the bottom of the river.

 

Over time these build up and as the type of particles swept up changes (due to the river cutting through a different part of the landscape, or a flood, or an ice age, etc) then a different layer gets deposited.

 

Over time these layers get compressed by the layers above them and they harden into rocks.

 

So as you can see, very different processes (one if from division and growth the other from deposition). Because the processes by which they pattern comes about (layers) are very different, you can not just point to one and say that because the patter is similar then they must be the same thing.

 

Tree rings are deposited by a chemical reaction (the growth and metabolism of a tree), where as the sediment was deposited by mechanical forces (erosion and fluid dynamics).

 

This is why Equivocation is not a a good argument.

 

If you were to look at the processes that produced the patterns and the processes were the same, then you would be right in saying that they were the same.

 

So no, even though the layers in a tree look like the layers in the Earth, because the processes that led them to be arranged like that are so completely different, I can't agree with you (except in that they only look like each other).

.

yes first step i think you understand completely. but main focus is earth has crust and core like tree log has.so many other similarties are there that tree and earth has. so earth looks living thing like tree. i have no lab etc facility so difficult to prove it scienctifically

[Edtharan]

so many other similarties are there that tree and earth has. so earth looks living thing like tree. i have no lab etc facility so difficult to prove it scienctifically

As I keep saying: Just because one thing resembles another, it does not mean that they are the same.

 

You have to provide more than just "they look like each other". I am not talking about scientific lab experiments, just a simple "They share the same processes".

 

yes first step i think you understand completely. but main focus is earth has crust and core like tree log has.

Well if we are just only going to focus on the similarities than the Earth is a loaf of bread. Loafs of bread have a crust, so does the Earth, so the Earth is not like a tree, but it is a loaf of bread instead.

 

Also, a loaf of bread can be round and almost spherical, where as a tree log is cylindrical. Therefore the Earth can't be like a log and so must be a piece of bread.

 

Get it. Just because you can point out a couple of superficial similarities, it does not make two things the same.

 

You can point out lots of similarities between almost any two objects. However, that does not make them the same. I can point out many similarities between the Earth and the Ogre, Shrek. Does this mean that the Earth is really a fiction computer generated character? No, of course not.

 

Just because you can point out similarities between a log and the Earth, does not make the Earth the same as a tree log. It does not make the rocks of Earth alive, any more than pointing out the similarities between Shrek and the Earth (both are green and have "layers") means that the Earth is a fictional character in a movie.

[Klaynos]

I think the earth is more like a gala pie...

 

It's out a crust, middle bit then two layers of core...

[jsispat]

As I keep saying: Just because one thing resembles another, it does not mean that they are the same.

 

You have to provide more than just "they look like each other". I am not talking about scientific lab experiments, just a simple "They share the same processes".

 

 

Well if we are just only going to focus on the similarities than the Earth is a loaf of bread. Loafs of bread have a crust, so does the Earth, so the Earth is not like a tree, but it is a loaf of bread instead.

 

Also, a loaf of bread can be round and almost spherical, where as a tree log is cylindrical. Therefore the Earth can't be like a log and so must be a piece of bread.

 

Get it. Just because you can point out a couple of superficial similarities, it does not make two things the same.

 

You can point out lots of similarities between almost any two objects. However, that does not make them the same. I can point out many similarities between the Earth and the Ogre, Shrek. Does this mean that the Earth is really a fiction computer generated character? No, of course not.

 

Just because you can point out similarities between a log and the Earth, does not make the Earth the same as a tree log. It does not make the rocks of Earth alive, any more than pointing out the similarities between Shrek and the Earth (both are green and have "layers") means that the Earth is a fictional character in a movie.

we can not compare earth with loaf of bread because bread is man made where tree is produced by nature as earth.can you tell me single natural thing having skin or crust but dead.

[DrP]

we can not compare earth with loaf of bread

 

Really now!

 

can you tell me single natural thing having skin or crust but dead.

 

I wouldn't call these dead as such because they were never alive, but:

A frozen lake. A Geode rock. A bubble. A dried up sea bed or a crusted over muddy puddle. The earth.

[Edtharan]

can you tell me single natural thing having skin or crust but dead.

I did so earlier, but you seem to have ignored it. Read post #45 again where you asked the exact same question (in post #38) and I gave the answer: "A frozen Lake".

 

we can not compare earth with loaf of bread because bread is man made where tree is produced by nature as earth.

So if I build a Hill, does that make the Hill dead? How much of a hill do I need to build to make it dead? Is a single spade full enough, or do I have to build it completely from scratch?

 

But lest look at that loaf of bread. The wheat that went into it was certainly alive. I might have harvested the wheat, ground it up into flour. I then added water and some salt, but while not alive themselves, are certainly found in and used by living organisms. I then added yeast (which is a living organism in its own right). Then I used heat to bake it.

 

Actually, there are even bread products that don't need to be baked (bagels for one), so even that step can be left out. I bet that if I looked hard enough, that I would be able to find a viable living cell in an unbaked bread product (and maybe even in a baked bread product).

 

So, in what way is that bread not alive?

 

If it is just because a human had does something to it, then I ask you: At what level of human interference does something that is alive stop being alive because a human interfered with it? And, then apply that to the Earth.

 

Humans have been digging, damming and generally reshaping most of the surface of the Earth for the last 5,000 or so years. We have radically change the surface of the Earth in that time. How is that different to what we do to the bread?

[jsispat]

I did so earlier, but you seem to have ignored it. Read post #45 again where you asked the exact same question (in post #38) and I gave the answer: "A frozen Lake".

 

 

So if I build a Hill, does that make the Hill dead? How much of a hill do I need to build to make it dead? Is a single spade full enough, or do I have to build it completely from scratch?

 

But lest look at that loaf of bread. The wheat that went into it was certainly alive. I might have harvested the wheat, ground it up into flour. I then added water and some salt, but while not alive themselves, are certainly found in and used by living organisms. I then added yeast (which is a living organism in its own right). Then I used heat to bake it.

 

Actually, there are even bread products that don't need to be baked (bagels for one), so even that step can be left out. I bet that if I looked hard enough, that I would be able to find a viable living cell in an unbaked bread product (and maybe even in a baked bread product).

 

So, in what way is that bread not alive?

 

If it is just because a human had does something to it, then I ask you: At what level of human interference does something that is alive stop being alive because a human interfered with it? And, then apply that to the Earth.

 

Humans have been digging, damming and generally reshaping most of the surface of the Earth for the last 5,000 or so years. We have radically change the surface of the Earth in that time. How is that different to what we do to the bread?

 

yes we can compare with wheat only directly give by nature and that is alive only. i dont think bread loaf or lake is suitable examples.

[DrP]

yes we can compare with wheat only directly give by nature and that is alive only. i dont think bread loaf or lake is suitable examples.

 

 

Nor is the earth -- it's just rock.

[Mr Skeptic]

A clever idea has just occurred to me. Hell has rings too, the nine circles of hell. So it looks like a tree, or maybe an onion. Obviously, hell is a living entity.

[Edtharan]

yes we can compare with wheat only directly give by nature and that is alive only. i dont think bread loaf or lake is suitable examples.

Carful...

 

Bad logic there. That is called Cherry Picking.

 

You said to provide you with an object that has layers and is not alive. A frozen lake is exactly what you asked for and now that it has been shown to prove you theory wrong, you reject it. You can't just reject evidence just because it does not agree with your theory.

 

Even if you think the bread loaf is not alive, then this raises further problems for your theory. You have based your theory on the fact that tress and the Earth have some visual similarities (some structures in one look a bit like some structures in the other). But the bread example shows that there are probably more visual similarities between the Earth and a loaf of bread.

 

However, you reject this based on the fact that it does not support your theory.

 

You have rejected both things because they do not agree with your theory.

 

In science, you need to accept that your theory might be wrong and if evidence comes in that disproves your theory, then you either have to reject the theory, or change it to fit the new evidence.

 

What you are doing is not science. And, since this is a science based site, you might want to have another look at your theory and either reject it or change it based on the fact that actual evidence disproves it as it is. Evidence you asked us to provide (and then rejected because it disproved your theory).

[jsispat]

Carful...

 

Bad logic there. That is called Cherry Picking.

 

You said to provide you with an object that has layers and is not alive. A frozen lake is exactly what you asked for and now that it has been shown to prove you theory wrong, you reject it. You can't just reject evidence just because it does not agree with your theory.

 

Even if you think the bread loaf is not alive, then this raises further problems for your theory. You have based your theory on the fact that tress and the Earth have some visual similarities (some structures in one look a bit like some structures in the other). But the bread example shows that there are probably more visual similarities between the Earth and a loaf of bread.

 

However, you reject this based on the fact that it does not support your theory.

 

You have rejected both things because they do not agree with your theory.

 

In science, you need to accept that your theory might be wrong and if evidence comes in that disproves your theory, then you either have to reject the theory, or change it to fit the new evidence.

 

What you are doing is not science. And, since this is a science based site, you might want to have another look at your theory and either reject it or change it based on the fact that actual evidence disproves it as it is. Evidence you asked us to provide (and then rejected because it disproved your theory).

i already answered that wheat is produced by nature that is alive but bread loaf is manufactured by human for this you can not answer how it resemles with tree.

i have given lot of another similarties like earth has bark or montains or shrinked skin that tree has.

2. earth extract extra matreial like valcanoes same tree extract wax snaps give earlier

3. earth strokes earth quake simble of expantion like tree if we see bark of tree.

4. if we see continents seems streched from small globe and upper skin shrinked very clear evidence.

i have given lot of similarties at parlell not single that bread has not.

[Sayonara]

This thread has no merits of any kind and as such is wasting both our database space, and our time.

 

Please do not resurrect this topic for a third pass; it will simply be locked on sight.