fafalone Posted July 18, 2002 Posted July 18, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov SS00, what we classify as higher are those that do not tolerate inorganic chemicals, well. Humans get their nutrients from other life forms. These life forms, prepare the minerals and biochemicals that are suitable for us. These organisms in turn get their sources from organisms that exist closer to the inorganic level. The llower you go down the closer the organism is to eating rocks, and acquiring their energy either from the sun, or directly from chemical inorganic reactions. Um, we tolerate inorganic compounds, they're called minerals. We couldn't live without them. Basic biology here, mr genius.
Zarkov Posted July 18, 2002 Author Posted July 18, 2002 Ok, try drinking too much sea water, lead chocolates, dirt from your garden, that old copper pipe. Ok, you can't chew some of them , so suck them and see what happens to your mind >
fafalone Posted July 18, 2002 Posted July 18, 2002 Of course we can't tolerate all inorganic compounds. We cannot tolerate all organic compounds either. Alcohol is organic (multiple covalently bonded carbon atoms, the definition of organic molecules), it kills all the time. Most naturally occuring poisons are organic also. Calcium is not organic, without calcium you'd have no skeletal structure or nervous system.
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Author Posted July 19, 2002 I take your point Fafalone. It comes down to the micro amounts for inorganics. Plutonium will kill at microgram levels. Yes calcium, iron, potassium, sodium, zinc, magnesium, iodine etc are all necessary, but in very strict concentrations. Even too much calcium (and that isn't very much) will calcify your tissues and maybe even kill. We are dependant on lower, more inorganic tolerant organisms, for our food.
fafalone Posted July 19, 2002 Posted July 19, 2002 I haven't heard of any organisms, right down to single celled ones, that plutonium doesn't kill. All organisms require a proper balance of organic and inorganic compounds; both are essential.
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Author Posted July 19, 2002 It is the relative amounts that are tolerated that is the key to biological "fineness". Yes you can go out and eat lead as much as you want. For as long as you live, your mental capacity will markedly deteriorate, until you become a salivating, quivering incoherent degenerate. For humans to function correctly only specified metals can be present and in very closely difined limits.
fafalone Posted July 19, 2002 Posted July 19, 2002 Go drink a gallon of everclear (organic/95% alc), and see what happens to your mental abilities
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Author Posted July 19, 2002 That's true, generally animals require stricter and stricter control of toxic inorganice, but plant life eats the stuf, sometimes gleefully, sometimes to it's detriment. Some bacteria eat rock direct, fungi often eat anything. In this way each "species" detoxifies it's environment and sets it up for the next most fastidious requirement organism. In the process of growing, all organisms remove some toxic materials from the environment, and lock them away in eg bones, leaves, fibre, lignins, and numerous other biochemicals. These locked toxic substances are thus effectively removed from the environment, making the area just a little more safe for LIFE. PS LIFE, capitals, I am referring to the whole super organism, which includes all the different types of supercells, including humans.
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Author Posted July 19, 2002 I have been informed that I am unscientific. Goodbye < If you wish to follow then log onto the ABC's Self Serve Science Forum at http://www.abc.net.au
Zarkov Posted July 19, 2002 Author Posted July 19, 2002 Don't forget, the real Science forum where tolerance is practiced http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/
fafalone Posted July 20, 2002 Posted July 20, 2002 What about it? Some organisms can tolerate it, some can only tolerate a little... it's just the salt (inorganic) that causes osmosis out of cells because of an extreme saline concentration on the outside.
Radical Edward Posted July 20, 2002 Posted July 20, 2002 Originally posted by Zarkov No LIFE made water, contrary to popular belief. Water is too reactive to remain free. And so is oxygen, they are our life blood and our lungs ! oxygen is pretty reactive stuff yes... but water.. not so. either that or there is a hell of alot of life on europa, in the carbonaceous chondrites, under the surface of mars, drifting around the galaxy generally.....
Zarkov Posted July 20, 2002 Author Posted July 20, 2002 All nutrients, some metal ions, a lot of organics, just the way we were designed by the Creation. More away from those perscribed levels and the organism can not exist. Creating an environment that will guarantee that these required levels can be maintained but not exceeded, is the reason why LIFE is so diverse, that coupled with the recycling of nutrients (saves a lot on energy).
Zarkov Posted July 21, 2002 Author Posted July 21, 2002 Radical Edward, yes I know there is suggested that there is water all over the place, but may be this came from other planets that had life on them. But that aside, water is very reactive, it is both acid and basic, it disolves almost everything in time, and the compounds formed with metals are all stable. No water would not be formed in a planet forming process. I can not talk of planet forming process unless I have evidence, but this does not stop administrators talking of big bangs, when there is no evidence. And by the way, if I make a typo, I get sin binned!!! Wow what a place to discuss science
Radical Edward Posted July 21, 2002 Posted July 21, 2002 I'll address your final points first. (try not to complain so much - you'll only get a reputation, and it doesn't add anything to the conversation) there is actually evidence for a big bang, several pieves in fact - or at the very least evidence that the universe was once very small, and is expanding. extrapolation from this suggests that the big bang occurred. I point you in the direction of the red shift of Galaxues (which shows they are receeding at some velocity) and the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is in essence, a black body spectrum of the universe when it was all in thermal equilibrium. since the universe is not in thermal equilibrium now, but has been in the past, you can say that all the energy and matter must have been very close together in order to maintain that equilibrium, and hence the universe was very small. the universe left equilibrium when the temperature dropped enough for the young atoms such as hydrogen and helium (which made up the bulk of the universe, and still do) to become transparent to the electromagnetic (aka light) radiation, and at that point the universe began to diverge away from an equilibrium state. water is actually very stable. If it wasn't it would be almost no use as a solvent - this is essentially the only funtion that water has (by volume anyway). life does not actually produce all that much water, and it can be produced very easily in the clouds of gas that form in the regions where stars are being born: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/water_space_010220.html (it's a bit pop sciency, but never mind)
Zarkov Posted July 21, 2002 Author Posted July 21, 2002 My posts are dissappearing into somewhere, this thread had some good support for my position, I have a copy of it. More censureship <
Zarkov Posted July 21, 2002 Author Posted July 21, 2002 Maybe ignore that lasr post, might have been due to my machine not updating. Actually Radical Edward, there is a backgroung microwave radiation, and there is red shifts, but that is no proof of a big bang. The BB is just a theory, and the evidence you cited is taken as proof, but in reality, there are other explanations that are more realistic. Pyramid water has more proof, if it was asked for than all the Universe forming from nothing all at once and the exploding, and then becomming stable. Any reasonable scientist would severly question this. >
Radical Edward Posted July 21, 2002 Posted July 21, 2002 yes, but there is not 'proof' of anything. Remember Science is a work in progress and should be treated as such Can you suggest something better than the big bang, while taking into account redshift of galaxies (and hence the expansion of the universe) and the Cosmic Microwave background, and also the predicted abundances of hydrogen and helium being about the same as what is observed (discrepancies due to nuclear fusion and not being about to see everything) or at the very least somehow demonstrating that these things are irrelevant. I certainly haven't seen any more reasonable explanations as to what caused these particular phenomenon, and indeed most of the reasonable scientists within the scientific community can't have either. please enlighten me. furthermore I have never offered an explanation as to why the big bang occured, or even for that matter what caused it and how all the matter came into existance, but I know enough to say that at this surrent time, any suggestions would be little more than idle conjecture, as no theory we have can actually approach the very instance that everything came into being (indeed time makes no sense at a singularity, so one can't really apply words like before, and 'at the moment of') However all the evidence so far points to the fact that at some time in the past, everything was very small and crunched up together, and that suggests a big bang. incidentally, since you have mentioned it several times but I've not seen an explanation. could you tell me what this pyramid water is, and offer the proof that you imply that you have. thanks.
blike Posted July 21, 2002 Posted July 21, 2002 This is the last time I will address your issues/complaints, because most of them aren't valid. And by the way, if I make a typo, I get sin binned!!! Faglone MAY have been a typo. MAY, but its a no-no typo At least in faf's eyes. Understand where hes coming from please. A heated debate, then you refer to him has fagalone. I'm truly sorry if it was a typo. I can not talk of planet forming process unless I have evidence, but this does not stop administrators talking of big bangs, when there is no evidence. Well, for starters, theres hubbles law, which is being discussed in another thread. There is also the cosmic microwave backround. Also the relative measurements of different elements in the universe. Approx 74% hydrogen and 26% helium. These elements could only be in such abundance in a universe that started in a very hot, dense state, and then quickly cooled and expanded. The Big Bang is only a theory. Science could be dead wrong. The beauty of science is that it modifies and adapts. However, it only does so with substantial evidence. You seem to misunderstand why you come under fire. Its not because you post a new idea, or have a new idea that conflicts with modern theory. You come under the heater when you say things like "Dawinian evolution is incorrect." and then don't state why. You stated what you believe an alternate theory was, but you didn't state why we should change our view to yours. That said, your ideas are welcome, just understand why some of us take the position we do. Respect our position, and yours will be respected as well.
Zarkov Posted July 21, 2002 Author Posted July 21, 2002 First it was a typo, and I appologised.....my topic was closed. Pyramid sacred water was closed. and yes I have been unreasonable harrassed right from the start of my postings. and in reality there is NO direct evidence for a BB, it is all conjecture.
kenel Posted July 21, 2002 Posted July 21, 2002 Your credibility is quite low, Zarkov. "Fadalone", or "Favalone" would be a common typo'd mispelling of "Fafalone"..."Faglone" does not appear to be a simple typo, but an insult.
Zarkov Posted July 21, 2002 Author Posted July 21, 2002 Radical Edward, as a matter of fact there is far better explanations for all the thoughts on the galaxy. Spin gravity opens up enormously powerful explanations for a number of observed phemonena, and rational explanations at that. But of course it is under discussion, because it is rediaclly new, so in this forum that equals NO PROOF. These people really want to keep their heads in the sand.....not a good call for science!!!
blike Posted July 21, 2002 Posted July 21, 2002 Pyramid water thread is here BTW. Be forewarned, the thread got hot.
Zarkov Posted July 22, 2002 Author Posted July 22, 2002 Again, Thanks Blike. BTW I do not hold grudges nor do I keep peeves as pets >)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now