I kill people with words.

I can tell lol. and i love it!!!

You should see some of the hate mail I get.

LOL
But I bet you LOVE the HATE mail don't you???

First I sit down and collect my thoughts... Then I reply to my 'fans' in a less than polite manner.


But enough of me. No more off topic!

Don't you hate it when, after you've had a few drinks (or maybe not) you start a thread that, at the time, it really seemed like a great idea, but after a few days have passed you start to wonder, "What the hell was I thinking?"

Then you feel burdened with the task of having to reply to your own thread, which you really don't care about any more?

Since this is a speculation thread, I was just wondering...

Yes...

Ok so what part of the earth to you represents the part that is not alive.

Why are you being rude about this idea? IF you don't agree you are free to move on. Why come in and start mocking people?

Clearly there are people who feel differently than you. There's no reason to be mean about it?

The entire planet. The organisms on the planet are the only thing that can be considered living.

The crust the oceans the land the lava all these such things you mean? The atmosphere ?

That is the earth to you?


Here's an article. BTW I had never heard of Gaia until Leonardo told me about it. I don't believe that the earth has a consciousness but rather that the earth is living and it creates life as part of it and the life it creates has all the data it needs in it to evolve. In this I think that the evolutionary theory that traces all live back to common ancestors is wrong.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m151..._20/ai_55926980

BLAH BLAH BLAH! I was already in. You tend to beat a dead horse in discussions, even when it's evident who's right and who's wrong. Don't like how I'm mocking someone for being stubborn and ignorant, your free to move on! Don't push your ethics on me. And for the record I'm not being mean ... I just don't like dragging out arguments, so I try to FINISH them.


HAPPY NEW YEARS (no sarcasm intended)

What do you mean by that?

What makes the Earth living and not just a big ball of rock?

Well no one is making you participate in this discussion if you've had enough then close the thread and move on. You might consider it beating a dead horse but usually that's because you see things are a very simplistic level. So often you don't even understand what's being said.

But that's ok. Since you don't contribute anything I can just pop you on ignore. You most certainly aren't finishing anything. LOL

Cheers.

Because its a living system. You can't deny that. Try reading the Gaia article I posted. The only difference is the way in which they seem to talk about hospitality. I don't see it quite the same way.

Good example! Now, the bear doesnt catch every salmon he wants to... He makes plenty of attempts before actually catching one. What makes it hard to catch salmon... Mainly speed. The slower ones are going to be easier to catch, therefore chances are the bear will catch, in majority, the slower ones rather than the fast ones.



Thats because your garden is a garden... it has plants. The living organisms die... but they arent "the Earth".

You shouldn't be mocking anyone at all, if you can't put forward a rebutal to someone's argument then the thing to do is step away from the thread, not resort to mocking people and then telling them to go away if they don't like it.

Let's have some grown up, civil contributions please.

Yes sir!


I can put forward a rebuttal to someones post, I cant however argue against someone who is for and against both sides... I wasn't really mocking anyone, I was frustrated with someone who was ignoring all the points people were posting. Sometimes I give stupid contributions for stupid topics, Don't judge me for all the bad things I've done now! Sometimes I leave little nuggets of goodness.

Was I not the one that was told to go away? All I did was say the exact same thing back to true, check the posts. Some got deleted though, which sucks.. Hey, you make the rules and I try to follow them!


w00t I got Saruman to quote me! Youuuu

This makes it almost sound like it's all just up to the weaker salmon. What about the smarter bears, about the bears who set up in just the right spot so that he will have a shot of catching some of the really strong, juicy salmon? So, there are way more variables than just which are the weaker salmon, aren't there?

But what makes the system living? The fact that it's self regulating?

I definitely see what you're getting at, and I somewhat agree with you. I'm going to think this over.

I just don't see where you go from 'system' to 'living system'.

Wouldn't it make more sense to describe it as just a complex adaptive system?

Not really. The bear may set up as well as he possibly can... it doesnt change the fact that the less fit salmon are more likely to get caught.

I figure it this was the earth has so be alive for nothing can grow out of anything if it's dead.

I agree, but there is a significant difference between saying they are most likely to get caught and saying that none of the fittest do also get caught. The fittest aren't ALWAYS the ones who survive, sometimes the bear is at just the right spot to catch the fittest salmon.

So? The fittest don't need to survive every time. The least fit don't need to be removed every time. The fact remains that the genes of the fittest are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. In reality this translates in to the frequency of favourable alleles increasing.

How is that quote mining? It is entirely representative of your general ignorance of biology - I am with Raptor here, you are questioning some of the most basic mechanisms of biology, stuff that is covered in high school, and questions that are easily answered if you would only search. Someone has already posted the percentages of prey make-up (old, young, infirm, healthy) that should put an end to this ridiculous line of questioning. "lions like to hunt" you claim, and for this reason they make a "choice" of the type of prey, presumably (in your example) because it's more fun to have a good old romp through the savannah after a nice strong buck who'll give the lion a REAL run for it's money. Please. The discovery channel is ENTERTAINMENT, and in answer to your question, yes, please disregard information from the discovery channel. Do some research instead.
Your ascertation can be characterised like this: Lions "like" to hunt in the same way that you "like" your Pancreas to secrete bile. You couldn't change it without endangering your life. Therefore it is not a "like" or preference, it is a given, a nescessity.

Will you stop with the anthropomorhism? Lions don't "make war" any more than they have peace rallies or sales conventions. Conflicts with hyenas are a function of the availability of food. If there is plenty of food, hyenas don't need to mess with lions. The conservation of energy is still king.

Isn't this an anthropomorphism too? You have no way of knowing why a lion does or doesn't do something.

Thats why I nevr said that the fittest never get caught...

It still needs input from an outside source, (the sun) however. And again, is it "the earth" that lives, or just the biological components that exist on it's skin (I think biological life forms have been found as deep as 1000 metres underground)?

No. I know these things because I studied biology. What, do think the thousands of people who spend their lives studying animal behaviour, just make this stuff up? Honestly, it's not rocket science. The concept is absolutely central to the theory of evolution, has been noted across thousands of species in hundreds of environments; aspects of this behaviour shows up in humans - really, you should let this drop.

Good, so as a student of science, you KNOW that science can't prove anything. Therefore, you cannot ascertain that a lion is doing something to conserve energy, at best you can ascertain that a result of a lion's action results, among other things in conservation of energy, but you can't ascertain that the lion is acting like that TO conserve energy, correct?

So, the fact that thousands of people spend their lives studying something gives it enough credibility to make it real? By that standard then what the Bible says is true, since millions of people have been studying it for ages.

Now you're having a laugh, aren't you? seriously, give it up. I'm not taking the bait, mate!

sorry about this IAMS but I have to say....... eh? that doesnt add up..science has proved a billion things..so much I wouldnt know where to begin...I know for a fact we wouldnt get by much at all without the work of science

Without the work of science you wouldn't have your bible....

Speaking of bibles... the bible as we know is all combined into a book you can hold in your hand...once you have read it..and get to the end..thats it..you can read it over and over..study it..but you will come to a stop soon enough, for it is all just in a book..

Science has so many books, so much to look at and learn..so many different categories..so many different subjects, issues that seem to go on for miles....science will continue to go on and there will always be something new to learn...its not like a bible..all wrapped up in one book...and unlike the bible...Science has in fact proven and created so many things in life for man to discover and grow....

Sorry about that but in reality I feel thats how it is...you can live and get by without a bible or a holy book...but you cant do the same with science...no one can

Question is this...how do we know God didnt direct man to science to make all these discoveries?? we dont..one can only ever assume

I understand what you're saying BM, but the scientific process, which is basically the process scientists use, cannot prove anything. It's not intended to because as we all know, with better tools and with newer findings, what we think we know today may change tomorrow. So, any scientist will tell you, science does not prove anything. Science studies nature to try to understand it, but the scientific process cannot be used to prove anything.

Read this. It explains what science is not. READ

Look at what #4 says:

Right, but your argument is still invalid.

Let's put all logic aside for a moment, and pretend that maybe, just maybe, animals don't behave in order to conserve energy. The undeniable fact remains that there is a link between behaviour and energy expenditure.

I'm pointing out how you are making incorrect statements.

As a student of biology, you must have learned about the scientific process, did you not? If you did, then you know that "Science is a process which can only produce "possible" to "highly probable" explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings." Therefore, you know it is incorrect for you to say that you KNOW something is so because you studied biology, right?

Additionally, you should realize that unless you're willing to concede that something like the Bible is true, you should not use the fact that there are an impressive number of people who spend their lives studying something closely as a clear indication that it must be true and absolutely trusted. I mean, I am willing to accept what you're saying is true because thousands of people dedicate their lives to studying animal behavior, if you are then willing to concede that by the same reason the Bible is true.

Please note that my "argument" is that saying animals do something because of conservation of energy is as much an anthropomorphism as saying they conduct war or have empathy or any other thing we read into their actions. I never argued that there was no link between animal behavior and conservation of energy. My "argument" was to point out that DogsHead, a student of biology, is guilty of the same thing he was getting on WalkingWithFire about.

So please tell me how my argument is invalid.

No. It is not incorrect to claim knowledge in science when supporting evidence is undeniable. This is not the same as claiming a philosophical "truth". I am aware that various luminaries have showed that there are no possible proofs outside of mathematics, but in the sense that we are talking about finite data sets within real world examples, I can "know" that preditory animals predate as the situation demands; to whit, the slowest, weakest, oldest and youngest tend to get eaten first.
Secondly, using the "study" of the bible as an example to show that the same level of intellectual rigour is present and therefore as valid is asinine. No one "studies" the bible in the same way one studies planerium worms or star formation. If they did, there would be no religion.

You definitely got the i and the t right...but only 3 letters need to fit between the first and last to describe you... The o is placed perfectly for you...
Carry on.

the earth is alive then all i can say she will have her revenge on us pretty soon i base this on no logic, just a bit of writing i saw on a bus seat, saying "earth is alive"

Im surpriced you can make such a claim, do you mean it as it is written?
The earth could never sustain itself without the sun or the moon to mention two things and those two things also makes life possible as we know it, I would say the earth needs "help" to support life quite a bit actually.

Sceince doesn't deal in philosphy, this is made real clear in any 3 grade science class son...... it has to be able to be proven...by all means entertain your ideas but its just not science ...then you go as far as to tell people they are making incorrect statements you are a funny one..I do say you keep us entertained.....

Ummmmm... Cognitive Science is the interdisciplinary study of both philosophy and science(s). Come on Sheri, you of ALL people should know that. But apparently all those scientists, psychologist, linguists, and physists you hang out with forgot to tell you that. How could that possibly have escaped you? Didn't you once tell me you'd read and enjoyed The Dancing Wu Li Masters? What do you suppose that was? Oh, ya, philosophy and physics all wrapped up into one.

And just so you can "expand your mind" ... Stanford has a nice page about what Cognitive Science is and isn't (you know, since they offer a degree program in it): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/

So yes, philosophy and science go beautifully together. We've known that not since 3rd grade, but since Plato.

Sheri, or Shadow Hill, or Mako, or whoever else it is that's using Sheri's account today to derail threads while taking juvenile potshots at me (By the way, I hadn't realized it took several of you to come up with enough crap to take me on), maybe you need to tell the University of Indiana professor who approved this Unit Plan: Teaching the Nature of Science that he's teaching college students incorrect information about science, because all I did was quote directly from it.

Yes, this is in part philosophy of science, but the scientific process is what science is grounded on, you of all people Sheri (*snickers* Yeah, Sheri... right ) should understand how important it is that we participate in the education of the young people who come to UM and read these posts.

By the way Shadow, or Mako, or whoever, you forgot all the LOLs and (((HUGS))) and misspelling and thoughts that trail off into.... that would have made it at least a little less obvious that someone else is using Sheri's account.

Someone else is using Sheri's account?

I dont know but it does seem a little different somehow. Maybe my imagination.

I don't think so. But it's for the mods to deal with. How about back on topic?

Even though I do not think the planet is alive, the way nature has been having a right go at us I can see how some people would think it is.

To me the Earth is my Mother, she is Mother to us all, even my little kitty cat. So for me she is a living entity along with the Universe. For life to be on this planet there must be life in the solar system, the Galaxy, and the Universe in general. Life begets life, and creates itself. That is the way I see it anyway.