Phi for All Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 I'm not comparing human characteristics, I'm comparing a "living organisms characteristics" as in "any living organisms" characteristics, but I'm referencing the" living organism" known as "human". Huge difference from anthropomorphism, so we can move passed this. I see. I'm nitpicky but you're not, and you don't want to talk about that anymore. You said, "Many planets don't have any, but still are planets." The question you had asked me was do I think other planets are "living" not do I think other planets are planets. *Just odd* That was a few questions ago. I wanted to know if you thought all planets were living organisms. Water wasn't part of the parameters of that question. I think I have my answer though. It looks like you think Earth is a living organism because of all the life on it, which seems to you to behave like our own biological systems. Is this right? Here again your being picky, you go on about humans not being the most evolved species but your only talking about natural section evolution, (Shark's and Croc's). I'm talk about all forms of evolution to include social which humans are at the top. Evolution is a process, with many mechanisms. It's the change in allele frequency within a population over time. There is no "natural selection evolution". There is no "social evolution". There are no "forms of evolution". Not being nitpicky saying this either. I'm attempting to correct a misunderstanding that may be keeping you from fully understanding what it is. And here again you are picky, you going on about how humans can "develop" ways to survive in water, non of which are natural. So this whole point of yours is mute and border line "off topic". It is insinuated in my quote that I'm talking about humans "natural" ability to not survive in water. *Strange* Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that our tools and technology, products of our high intelligence, opposable thumbs, communication skills and cooperative nature, are unnatural. They're what we've developed to allow our adaptive capabilities to flourish. But I agree, that's a topic for a different thread. I'll be happy to discuss why everything humans do is just as natural as what every other animal does. In a different thread. Yes you are being very picky; you are trying to prove why my thoughts are completely wrong but all your really doing is telling me you don't like the way a use curtain words. Science doesn't try to "prove" anything (proof is for maths), and I'm not even trying to say your "thoughts are completely wrong". Again, that's a strawman of my position, I've been very specific about where your idea falls down and needs some support. At this point, I'm just trying to show where you've misunderstood some science. I'm not worried at all about "being right". This isn't a right or wrong situation it is a, "I think this" or "I think that" situation. I'm not out to gain money or fame, I'm just stating what I think and then backing it up. It is those that come on here and Say " YOUR WRONG" OR "THAT'S IS ALL WRONG", they are the ones that are more concerned about being right or wrong. My only exception to this is the whole anthropomorphism thing which you were wrong with your usage, but your idea wasn't wrong, I just don't agree with it. You're a bit defensive, and I guess that's understandable since you've obviously thought about this a lot. But make no mistake, parts of what you've said ARE a right or wrong situation. You're wrong about the science I've specifically mentioned, or at the very least you're disagreeing with mainstream science. You can't rewrite evolutionary theory without some extraordinary evidence to support you. I'm willing to drop the anthropomorphism angle since you seem to take such exception to it. I'll ignore the dictionary definition in this regard and just agree that what you meant is not what I read. No, that is ego talking. Opinions are just expressions of thoughts from experiences. They are neither right nor wrong. They can be moral or immoral but not wrong. But then again morality can be different depending on point of view and point of view influences opinion. oooo Paradox***** So if I have the opinion that the sky is colored in black and white squares like a chess board, that opinion is neither right nor wrong? How about my opinion that my thumb is bigger than Cleveland, Ohio, because it completely covers that city on the map?
For Prose Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 ok ty, examples? No, that is ego talking. Opinions are just expressions of thoughts from experiences. They are neither right nor wrong. They can be moral or immoral but not wrong. But then again morality can be different depending on point of view and point of view influences opinion. oooo Paradox***** I was about to give you an example but Phi kindly did so for me. You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of Rajnish Kaushik would you? Your writing style seems very familiar minus the numerous misspellings... Opinions can indeed be right or wrong when corresponding to facts. You mistake all opinions with some opinions. For example, it my opinion that beets taste awful. Is this wrong or right? No, it is an opinion. It's my opinion that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is a living thing capable of reproduction by blasting earth rocks into space via volcanic activity is not a comparative opinion. You can actually read all about what opinions consist of here. Now, as always, you are completely free to your opinions. But it's best to make the distinction so you can tell others when it is your opinion and not fact. You can also confer by your poll results certain things about the way others see your view. *Cross posted with Phi* 1
Lance_Granger Posted October 17, 2014 Author Posted October 17, 2014 Quote You said, "Many planets don't have any, but still are planets." The question you had asked me was do I think other planets are "living" not do I think other planets are planets. *Just odd* That was a few questions ago. I wanted to know if you thought all planets were living organisms. Water wasn't part of the parameters of that question. I think I have my answer though. It looks like you think Earth is a living organism because of all the life on it, which seems to you to behave like our own internal systems. Is this right? That is just one part of it. Its not just the organisms living on Earth, Its the whole biosphere, atmosphere and the the other sphere's together that make up the Earth organism. Quote Here again your being picky, you go on about humans not being the most evolved species but your only talking about natural section evolution, (Shark's and Croc's). I'm talk about all forms of evolution to include social which humans are at the top. Evolution is a process, with many mechanisms. It's the change in allele frequency within a population over time. There is no "natural selection evolution". There is no "social evolution". There are no "forms of evolution". Not being nitpicky saying this either. I'm attempting to correct a misunderstanding that may be keeping you from fully understanding what it is. Sorry but this is just plain not true and I wouldn't even know where to begin to educate you on it. Quote And here again you are picky, you going on about how humans can "develop" ways to survive in water, non of which are natural. So this whole point of yours is mute and border line "off topic". It is insinuated in my quote that I'm talking about humans "natural" ability to not survive in water. *Strange* Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that our tools and technology, products of our high intelligence, opposable thumbs, communication skills and cooperative nature, are unnatural. They're what we've developed to allow our adaptive capabilities to flourish. But I agree, that's a topic for a different thread. I'll be happy to discuss why everything humans do is just as natural as what every other animal does. In a different thread Ok we can move on from this too. Quote Yes you are being very picky; you are trying to prove why my thoughts are completely wrong but all your really doing is telling me you don't like the way a use curtain words. Science doesn't try to "prove" anything (proof is for maths), and I'm not even trying to say your "thoughts are completely wrong". Again, that's a strawman of my position, I've been very specific about where your idea falls down and needs some support. At this point, I'm just trying to show where you've misunderstood some science. lmao again your saying your don't like the way I use curtain words. Got it! Ok I obviously missed something. Please just one more time, ask me plainly what it is you would like me to clarify. Please not word usage put spacific sujectrs and where you would like me to clarify. Quote I'm not worried at all about "being right". This isn't a right or wrong situation it is a, "I think this" or "I think that" situation. I'm not out to gain money or fame, I'm just stating what I think and then backing it up. It is those that come on here and Say " YOUR WRONG" OR "THAT'S IS ALL WRONG", they are the ones that are more concerned about being right or wrong. My only exception to this is the whole anthropomorphism thing which you were wrong with your usage, but your idea wasn't wrong, I just don't agree with it. You're a bit defensive, and I guess that's understandable since you've obviously thought about this a lot. But make no mistake, parts of what you've said ARE a right or wrong situation. You're wrong about the science I've specifically mentioned, or at the very least you're disagreeing with mainstream science. You can't rewrite evolutionary theory without some extraordinary evidence to support you. I'm willing to drop the anthropomorphism angle since you seem to take such exception to it. I'll ignore the dictionary definition in this regard and just agree that what you meant is not what I read. I haven't been defensive at all, most of this makes me laugh and I'm truly enjoying the conversation.. well the parts that actually have been a conversation. I'm not trying to rewrite anything. You over estimate my scientific entrepreneurial ambitions. lmao I was about to give you an example but Phi kindly did so for me. You wouldn't happen to be a sockpuppet of Rajnish Kaushik would you? Your writing style seems very familiar minus the numerous misspellings... Opinions can indeed be right or wrong when corresponding to facts. You mistake all opinions with some opinions. For example, it my opinion that beets taste awful. Is this wrong or right? No, it is an opinion. It's my opinion that gravity doesn't exist or that the earth is a living thing capable of reproduction by blasting earth rocks into space via volcanic activity is not a comparative opinion. You can actually read all about what opinions consist of here. Now, as always, you are completely free to your opinions. But it's best to make the distinction so you can tell others when it is your opinion and not fact. You can also confer by your poll results certain things about the way others see your view. *Cross posted with Phi* Never met a Rajnish Kaushik before so not sure what your talking about. Everything else is off subject and I have been warned not to go off subject so I can't help you there.
Phi for All Posted October 17, 2014 Posted October 17, 2014 Sorry but this is just plain not true and I wouldn't even know where to begin to educate you on it. Whereas I know exactly where to begin to educate you in evolutionary theory. In fact, I've already begun. But since you don't seem to accept my attempts, I'll just steer you to the best site on the net for unlearning what you think you know about it: http://www.talkorigins.org/ lmao again your saying your don't like the way I use curtain words. Got it! No. No! I'm saying that science uses theory, not proof. Despite what you've been told, scientists don't WANT to "prove" things. They want the best current explanations for natural phenomena, the ones supported by the most evidence. This distinction is a big part of the scientific methodology. It keeps us searching rather than assuming we know some kind of "truth". Does that make sense to you? Ok I obviously missed something. Please just one more time, ask me plainly what it is you would like me to clarify. Please not word usage put spacific sujectrs and where you would like me to clarify. OK. How about explaining your position again on how the planet reproduces itself by throwing mountains into space. You over estimate my scientific entrepreneurial ambitions. lmao Yet you claim I'm wrong about evolution. Where did you get the science education that tells you humans are the pinnacle of social animals? Because they're not. A hive of bees gets along better than a similar number of humans. Or is that just being nitpicky?
John Cuthber Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Lance, there's only one pertinent question Does the Earth reproduce? Well, if it does then that's easy- show me the baby Earths. Without that the last 3 pages don't matter. If you can't do that then it's also very simple. If the Earth does not reproduce, then it is not alive, Your decision to "redefine" a few words in the mean time doesn't affect that.
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Lance, there's only one pertinent question Does the Earth reproduce? Well, if it does then that's easy- show me the baby Earths. Without that the last 3 pages don't matter. If you can't do that then it's also very simple. If the Earth does not reproduce, then it is not alive, Your decision to "redefine" a few words in the mean time doesn't affect that. OK. How about explaining your position again on how the planet reproduces itself by throwing mountains into space.
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 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? 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. You imply it my friend.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 You imply it my friend. LMAO ok that was an off handed comment from way earlier in the thread. it was not meant to be taken serious. Lance, there's only one pertinent question Does the Earth reproduce? Well, if it does then that's easy- show me the baby Earths. Without that the last 3 pages don't matter. If you can't do that then it's also very simple. If the Earth does not reproduce, then it is not alive, Your decision to "redefine" a few words in the mean time doesn't affect that. Yes, and your baby Earths would be geologic features. I actually have answered this question, I just don't think people like the answer, but that is the answer. So we shouldn't need to keep asking the same question over and over again in different ways.. -1
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I removed nothing from the quote that would make one believe that it wasn't to be taken seriously Lance. You do see how a comment made like that sways someone to think you truly believe this? Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it standard to read an entire (or most of) thread before commenting? Posts from way earlier in the thread are to be taken just as serious as the rest of the progressing discussion.
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I never said anything like that LMAO ok that was an off handed comment from way earlier in the thread. it was not meant to be taken serious. Yet you told us all to think about it before we answered. You didn't tell us it wasn't to be taken seriously. What other parts of your idea aren't to be taken seriously? Yes, and your baby Earths would be geologic features. I actually have answered this question, I just don't think people like the answer, but that is the answer. So we shouldn't need to keep asking the same question over and over again in different ways.. So, in other words, your answer is fairly poor and you'd rather we didn't dwell on it? It seems like you want to distance yourself from the whole mountain = baby Earth proposal. I get that, but you seem to be implying that your answer actually helped your idea. I don't think it did.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 Yet you told us all to think about it before we answered. You didn't tell us it wasn't to be taken seriously. What other parts of your idea aren't to be taken seriously? So, in other words, your answer is fairly poor and you'd rather we didn't dwell on it? Your misconstruing the context of what was being talked about at the time I asked that. Of course Earth isn't throwing mountains into space. That was a question I asked someone that I was hoping would lead into something else. The other bailed out before we could finish the conversation. Hope that settles any more confusion. My answer was not poor. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it was poor. How else can I explain a concept that is fairly simple. Do you need a picture book maybe? lmao Nobody likes to have to answer the same question over and over again. Pretty counter productive don't you think there, " Chief Executive Offworlder"? So i'll ask all of you...IN YOUR OPINION, Does a reproduction (copy) of a living organism need to "leave" its source in order to be considered living? -3
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Your misconstruing the context of what was being talked about at the time I asked that. Of course Earth isn't throwing mountains into space. That was a question I asked someone that I was hoping would lead into something else. The other bailed out before we could finish the conversation. Hope that settles any more confusion. My answer was not poor. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it was poor. How else can I explain a concept that is fairly simple. Do you need a picture book maybe? lmao Nobody likes to have to answer the same question over and over again. Pretty counter productive don't you think there, " Chief Executive Offworlder"? So now you sink to Argument from Ridicule and ad hominem. Good luck with that. 1
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 From what you have said thus far, it is very possible that it is your "opinion" that the earth is indeed, blowing mountains into space. Now that you have explicitly stated that you do not believe this, it is clear. I am curious to what originally made you believe in such lunacy as the earth being a living thing by our definitions? A peer, website, or maybe even something you just happened to imagine? So now you sink to Argument from Ridicule and ad hominem. Good luck with that. These are just two of the fatal fallacies I advised you to do a little researching into.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) From what you have said thus far, it is very possible that it is your "opinion" that the earth is indeed, blowing mountains into space. Now that you have explicitly stated that you do not believe this, it is clear. I am curious to what originally made you believe in such lunacy as the earth being a living thing by our definitions? A peer, website, or maybe even something you just happened to imagine? These are just two of the fatal fallacies I advised you to do a little researching into. Nope, contrary to most I actually do read and study quite often. I'm not into regurgitation of information, not my thing. So now you sink to Argument from Ridicule and ad hominem. Good luck with that. Not trying to offend, I'm just trying to help you understand were I'm coming from so you don't have to keep asking the same questions and I thought pictures would help because my word being repeated over and over again aren't helping. Edited October 18, 2014 by Lance_Granger -2
davidivad Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) while the earth does not meet the technical definition for life in my opinion, it just so happens to be an organism.... take that! Search Resultsor·gan·ism ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/ noun noun: organism; plural noun: organisms an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. synonyms: living thing, being, creature, animal, plant, life form "fish and other organisms" the material structure of an individual life form. "the heart's contribution to the maintenance of the human organism" a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being. "the upper strata of the American social organism" synonyms: structure, system, organization, entity "a complex political organism" Edited October 18, 2014 by davidivad
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 while the earth does not meet the technical definition for life in my opinion, it just so happens to be an organism.... take that! Please explain further, unless your immediate remark of "take that!" means you have no intention of doing so. Nope, contrary to most I actually do read and study quite often. I'm not into regurgitation of information, not my thing. This makes absolutely no sense. No context into what you are referring to. I know it was in regards to my response but other than that... -1
davidivad Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 while the earth does not fit the definition of lifeform, it clearly fits the accepted definition of organism. this is a silly argument...
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 If you mean as per the definition "a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being". Then, just maybe, does it fit one of many definitions given for organism. But even then, I don't think it fits organism in the biological use of the term.
Endy0816 Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 There are feedback loops, but it ultimately comes down to life doing all the adapting. Life feeds on itself, literally as well as figuratively.
davidivad Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) If you mean as per the definition "a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being". Then, just maybe, does it fit one of many definitions given for organism. But even then, I don't think it fits organism in the biological use of the term. if you cant find the definition i wil give it to you again p.s. i dont think he is a biologist. Edited October 18, 2014 by davidivad
For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 if you cant find the definition i wil give it to you again p.s. i dont think he is a biologist. Actually, if you notice that blue link I have provided where it says organism, I think you will find that I managed to actually provide you with the definition... And yes, there is no doubt in my mind.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 Please explain further, unless your immediate remark of "take that!" means you have no intention of doing so. This makes absolutely no sense. No context into what you are referring to. I know it was in regards to my response but other than that... This makes total sense. You asked if I got this idea from some person or website and I said no......... I got this idea from studying and observing, "all on my own even" and trough this studying and observing I came to these conclusions. while the earth does not meet the technical definition for life in my opinion, it just so happens to be an organism.... take that! Search Resultsor·gan·ism ˈôrɡəˌnizəm/ noun noun: organism; plural noun: organisms an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form. synonyms: living thing, being, creature, animal, plant, life form"fish and other organisms" the material structure of an individual life form. "the heart's contribution to the maintenance of the human organism" a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being. "the upper strata of the American social organism" synonyms: structure, system, organization, entity"a complex political organism" Thank you for dropping this in David! ninja! There are feedback loops, but it ultimately comes down to life doing all the adapting. Life feeds on itself, literally as well as figuratively. ty endy
davidivad Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 i bring the the gift of a trade because nothing is free. blind technicality must never rule.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 If you removed all of the life on Earth, "Earth" the planet would still be here, but it would be a dead planet. The living components of Earth give it its life. Just like the living components of humans give them life.
Recommended Posts