DrP Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Originally Posted by Sayonara³ 'By absorbing nutrients from the ground and gaseous matter from the amosphere. Also by being alive and carrying out complex and very apparent biochemical processes.' JSISPAT: 'same process is hapening with earth for growth of it because earth is also a living thing like a tree. o k my only point is same process of growth hapening with earth as well as with plants.' Yea, but WHERE are these nutrients supposed to come from??? The tree gets its nutrients from the gound right? So where does the earth get its nutrients from then?? There is no ground, just space - which is NOT feeding matter into the earth.
Sayonara Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 It does a little bit, but if you try to explain "earth growth" just with that you are going to be out by many orders of magnitude. Unless you count accretion in a protoplanetary disc. Oh wait...
jsispat Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 Yea, but WHERE are these nutrients supposed to come from??? The tree gets its nutrients from the gound right? So where does the earth get its nutrients from then?? There is no ground, just space - which is NOT feeding matter into the earth. i have already mentioned in my earlier postings that here universe is a soil where these planets germinating ang growing. So basically, what you are saying is that all you have is an argument from incredulity, and you can't provide any explanation for your alternative idea. no i am saying that i have lot of visual logics that fit in my theory but for scienctifically logics i need some technical help for that.
insane_alien Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 no i am saying that i have lot of visual logics that fit in my theory but for scienctifically logics i need some technical help for that. so you are starting from a conclusion. thats not how science works. in science, you make observations, then you form a hypothesis then you experiment and revise your hypothesis. this cycle of revision carries on and on by many different labs and scientists to make sure it is repeatable and then you get a theory. observations say, earth is not alive and space is not a soil. therefore your hypothesis is wrong.
Royston Posted August 7, 2008 Posted August 7, 2008 no i am saying that i have lot of visual logics that fit in my theory but for scienctifically logics i need some technical help for that. You've already been told though, that your initial premises are flawed, yet you've chosen to ignore this advice, and continue to raise the same argument. Nobody can back your idea up with 'technical help' because the reasoning, and assumptions that have lead to your idea, are logically fallicous.
Recommended Posts