Unless you believe in God, that isn't true. At some point, life had to come from non-life.

Interestingly, God (as described by religion) isn't alive either.

Lovelock who came up with this idea of Gaia doesn't seem to claim the Earth is Living





Lovelock is coy about just how seriously we should take his personification of the planet and biosphere. Revenge, like some of the other books, includes a disclaimer: "You will notice I am continuing to use the metaphor of ‘the living Earth' for Gaia; but do not assume that I am thinking of the Earth as alive in a sentient way, or even alive like an animal or a bacterium. . . . It has never been more than metaphor—an aide pensée, no more serious than the thoughts of a sailor who refers to his ship as ‘she.'"

Proving, that at some point, life came from non-life.

And out of curiousity Darkwind... how would you reconcile that with the folks that say that your philosophy of the living earth and science don't meet at all? I'd be curious, because I would think that you of all folks, would have a lot of interesting things to say about that. I'd be interested in hearing about it anyway.

Earth is the non-life in this equation, and we are the life that came from the non-life.

Maybe, but it is intelligent, purposeful, design-capable non-life.

You just declared a fact. So I assume you have factual proof. Can I see it?

Sure, you can see it, but there's a few steps you need to take in order to be prepared to see it. Are you willing to take them?

Someone asked, "[in the analogy] which part of the earth is the pot?"

Instead of the flower/flower pot analogy I think a better analogy might be bee/bee hive. Does it make sense to think of a hive as a cognizant entity? It behaves like one. The main reason we assume that it can't be a cognzant entity is that we can isolate a finer breakdown in the system to smaller, more limited cognizant entities. The Gaia Hypothesis assumes that a cognizant entity can be made up of smaller cognizant (or semi-cognizant) entities.

According to the western scientific definition of mind, it can't be an amalgam of smaller minds.

Will you be judging if he took those steps right?

Nice answer... wait, you didn't answer. You asked a question.

Does one of the steps involve accpeting Jesus as our saviour

Depends on how old the Multiverse is and how time functions at that level. If the Universe is alive and it came from the Multiverse which has many Universes in it and the Multiverse came from other Mulitverses... Maybe time isn't what we think it is maybe it is an endless loop and life recycles itself in the loop




So far in the deepest drill holes we have drilled into the Earth there is life in the rock. Oregon State University Life permeates the Earth.

Something can't be created by something, that it hasn't created yet. It makes for a great science fiction story, but it defies the laws of logic.



We can only hope.

Oh yes, I don't doubt that.

And I'm not arguing with ya, I'm actually playing a little devils advocate (maybe?) and maybe trying to understand your belief a little bit better.

Do you believe the earth is sentient? Or just teeming with life? Or is earth itself alive and living?

A 500 gallon fish aquarium can be teeming with life, but is the aquarium itself alive? (I dunno, this is whey I'm asking, that may have been a very poor analogy I just used).

I believe the Earth is sentient and life interconnects as our cells interconnects to create us. I bet if you use an electron microscope on your aquarium's glass you would find life living in the glass. I might be completely wrong, but it just how I see it when I am meditating in the woods with my bare feet on the ground. I feel the pulse of life all around me and in the earth. I feel her love and power. Maybe I am just crazy but it was I feel and experience.

If there was life living inside the glass, that doesn't mean the glass is alive. It means that something inside the glass has managed to survive.

What I am saying is that life on the Earth unifies and creates a sentient living Earth.

There is nothing to back that up. It's just a belief. The earth is simply home to sentient beings, we don't give the earth life.

I disagree. The whole earth is a breeding ground, it supplies the necessary elements to sustain and create life. That doesn't necessarily mean life originated here though.

You might be right. It's just my little hypothesis. Can't prove it now but maybe some day.

The earth is a sum of its parts. Organic, inorganic. So, technically it is living.

-Snip-

i happen to be quite up on this Mw as usual you are out of the loop, a google on online is a far cry from a college course...lol ..i happen to be dear freinds with a pioneer in this field what would you like to know..

No love i didn't read the book you recommended its the latest in an installment of self help books..... self professed guru's..sorry love but thanks anyways.....
No I did not read the book you mentioned.. science is interested in proof or is isn't science...

what do you know of physics i guess i have missed it......what is physics....please refresh my memory..

But I'll do you one better I'll ask my foriend tommororw jsut his question as we meet for our pow wows...giggles...

whats holding that glass togehter???? could it be molecules and atoms hmm

Darkwind- I'm pretty sure that my beliefs are similar to yours. When I first realized that some other people in the world believed what I believed (intuited what I intuit) I was SO relieved.

*smile*

I'm sure someone pointed this out earlier in the thread.... but in order to progress in any meaningful way, we need a definition on what constitutes life: ah yes, Cimber provided one

... and must metablolize, one presumes.
does everyone agree with this definition?

I disagree with the comment that it must use DNA. Any biochemical system should suffice. Granted, we don't know of any alternatives, but there's no reason for them to be excluded by definition.

I agree. Maybe even a non-biochemical system that is logical in structure and appears over and over.

Why would I be judging whether he takes the steps or not. From my perspective this is on the honor system, no judging.


I answered that you can see it.


You got it, sir!

Hmmm. That would make crystals, metals etc living, wouldn't it?
So a possible definition could be; reproduction, metabolism? The ability to metabolize must be essential, wouldn't you think? I agree with you, Raptor, that there is no reason to nescessarily include DNA as a definer. Did you mean though, that there must be some mechanism for heredity? I'm thinking virii here...

It would be amazing if such a thing existed and could still hit the other targets (metabolism, growth etc.), not quite sure how it could though.



Sort of. I had silicon based organisms in mind when I was writing that post, but of course that's just speculation.



So in order to have a relationship with God you must accept Jesus as your saviour, which requires faith.

That's like having someone ask you for directions, you blindfold them, spin around three times and tell them to walk forward. That's not for me, thanks.

Hey, I understand. I was just providing an answer.

I know. I wasn't attacking you, just adding my thoughts.

Its just that you mention he needs to take a few steps in order to see the fact you claimed. And then proceed to ask if he is willing to take them, so it could sound like you were ready to judge if he took those teps "right" if he still failed to see the fact. also it was obviously a little of a trick question I knew you would not bite though

Those steps he would need to take, can I ask what they are besides accepting jesus?

ps: Its both funny and annoying that you seem to be one of the few who disprove my experiment with my user name, you dont seem to _expect_ me to be condescending by default its quite interresting

The thing is, even if I wanted to judge whether he took the steps correctly or not, I could not, only he (and God) would know. Of course we would all have a good indication if he was able to see it after he followed the steps or not. If he wasn't able to see it then that would be a strong indication that he had not followed the steps.

Well, see, to me Salvation is a multi-step process. First, you (this is the universal "you") have to acknowledge that your willful decisions to disobey have separated you from God, then you need to understand that this separation, if left unrepaired will lead to eternal death, then you have to accept that you can't do anything to repair this separation, then you have to accept that God took care of the repair and left it for you to accept it as a gift, and THEN you have to accept the gift (can't believe I originally left this particular step out ). These are not steps you can successfully fake, because the only ones who are truly aware of whether you followed them are you and God.

*bows* I live to confound

Um Sheri, You DID tell me in another thread that you had read the Dancing Wu Li Masters. It's not a self help book. It was written in the 1970's so it's hardly new. Not even close. And it definitely wouldn't be found in "Self Help" unless it was misshelved.

You did tell me had read it. I gave you three book suggestions, you told me you'd read the first two, and not the third:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1655226

So which is it? Did you or did you not read it? I would say you hadn't since you think it's a self help book. It's not. It's certainly not the "latest in an installment" it was the first book the author ever wrote--32 years ago.

And really, the condesending *giggles* and calling me "love" is quite inappropriate. I make an attempt to not talk down to you... I would appreciate the same the same level of respect. Otherwise, I see it as you trolling for an emotional reaction from me.

And, just a little reminder... I'm 22 credits short of my Batchelor of Science (I'm basically one quarter and a final short of my BS). And I have an AA in techincal pharmaceutical assisting (lots of chemistry). I also work as a software developer (computer science). You don't need to tell me what college is about, I have 6 years minus a quarter of formal education, and many many more informal years of software development. Don't go there with me.

Oh, and btw, I didn't address the first part of your post because I don't think you wrote it, I'm not sure what the context is. Can you please post the source, it makes no sense without it. I can see the special characters in that first paragraph, which aren't in the second part of your post (the EM dashes specifically) so you copy/pasted most of the first paragraph from somewhere. Again, source please.

I'm not addressing the last part below the bold because this thread isn't about physics or what I know about it... it's about the earth as a "live" entity. Unfortunately, Iamsson and I have had to stop talking about the topic at hand to address whatever your issues with us are. That's not very fair to other people trying to follow the thread.

Now, just a few days ago, weren't you ridiculing me for thinking I have new thoughts?
Hmm, yes, it was, you "Sheri"

So, now, the questions which naturally present themselves are:

1. Did you mean I specifically can't have new thoughts? If you did, that is actually a violation of forum rules, since I would consider it a personal attack, and you need to be careful.
2. Did you forget that just 3 days ago you derided me for inferring new thoughts are not possible? If you did then you and whoever else is using your account need to get better at "remembering" what you do and don't believe or what you have said in previous posts.
3. Did you copy and paste the first 2 sentences of your post and "forget" to give proper credit while also failing to notice it confirmed that there are new thoughts/ideas? If you did, then you have violated forum rules and need to edit your post to credit the writer, and maybe provide a link to the web page so that those of us who are interested can read these sentences in their proper context.
4. Do you know what you're talking about? If you don't then just disregard the first three questions.

burned. Anyway, are you or are you not, going to provide the evidence you promised, that shows that God is the creator of life? Or was that simply a, if you become a Christian, you'll see it.

Well lets start with the fact that the earth's core is boiling hot melted metals. Ok, so theres no brain or nerve or body cells in the core. Acceptable. Now lets move out to the outer core, rock hard pure nickel, cobalt and iron. Ok, so no intelligence or functioning cells there. That works, lets move up. On into the mantle, silicon, magnesium, and oxygen. So much pressure and temperature that its flowing like liquid. Ok, so no life there, maybe in the crust? Ok, solid hard rock there. Perhaps above the crust? Lets take a look! Ok, lets see, we have some humans, some doggies, some kitties, some fishies, some sharkies, some bearies, and some fairies. Yep! So Earth is alive, look at all the wonderful creauters on it!

Earth is a rock.

I did provide an answer. I told you there are specific steps which must be taken. If you want to see the rings of Saturn, you must take specific steps to see them, if you don't want to take the steps required to see the moons of Saturn, that's fine, but then you can't turn around and say they are not there because you didn't see them. If you want to see evidence that God is the creator you must take specific steps. If you don't want to take the specific steps, that's fine.

I would agree with this, Sheri please avoid emotional remarks like these in your posts as it's very difficult to ascertain how they are intended and nor are they apropriate, it's best to stick to the facts being discussed and avoid any personal comments or attacks. Also, please always include a source link for material copied from external sources.

On a related note can we all try and keep personal issues off the boards please so as to not disrupt the discussion, if you have any concerns about other members then please contact either myself or another moderator and we will be happy to discuss it.

Thank you.

<vBg>Well, I guess it could be interpreted that way, but that's not what I meant. Clearly - I believe the Earth is alive...its a perpetuating garden. The entire system is to sustain life. If we start choking the life out of the planet, as we've been doing for decades, it will begin to fail and no longer support life as we know it. It could become another Mars or Venus...
Other than a host, can something dead sustain life? Can something inanimate make something animate?
I don't believe so.

I agree that the earth is alive although the time scales somethings happen on may not be immediately recognisable to us short lived humans. For one, the way magma/molten rock stuff flows arround and peridically spurts forth from vents and volcanoes is analogous with mammalian blood.
if the earth has a concience, i think we would be too insignificant to recognise it as such. It would be like microbes trying to communicate with humans or the other way arround. How could we get the microbes attention? Cause earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plagues? It all makes sense in my head, anyway.

The potted plant is limited by the pot. The roots can only go so far before the plant becomes root bound, the soil degraded and without nourishment. The plant will die unless the roots can spread out and find water and nourishment...the pot inhibits the life.

There a so many life forms, seen and unseen, on this planet that I don't believe we can state that with such surety.
Even rocks have been known to "grow"...

Your elaborate sarcasm fails to compensate for the fact that you've never bothered to read anything about the Gaia hypothesis and basically don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

The hypothesis doesn't imply that the earth is an organic entity like "doggies" and "kitties". It says that the earth BEHAVES like a living entity. I'm adding some quotes from James Lovelock's book "Gaia", not because I think the author's some sort of Enlightened Prophet but just to give you a sense of how intelligent people discuss the Gaia Hypothesis.

-------------------------------

"In the early 1960's I often visited the Jet Propulsion Laboratories of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena... led by that most able of space biologists Norman Horowitz, whose main objective was to devise ways and means of detecting life on Mars and other planets... At that time, the planning of experiments was mostly based on the assumption that evidence for life on Mars would be much the same as for life on Earth. Thus one proposed series of experiments involved dispatching what was, in effect, an automated microbiological laboratory to sample Martian soil and judge its suitability to support bacteria, fungi, or other micro-organisms. Additional soil experiments were designed to test for chemicals whose presence would indicate life at work: proteins, amino-acids, and particularly optically active substances with the capacity that organic matter has to twist a beam of polarized light in a counter-clockwise direction...

After a year or so I found myself asking some rather down to earth questions, such as, "How can we be sure that the Martian way of life, if any, will reveal itself to tests based on Earth's life style?" To say nothing of more difficult questions, such as, "What is life, and how should it be recognized?"

Some of my sanguine colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories... quite properly asked, "Well, what would you do instead?" At the time I could only reply vaguely, "I'd look for an entropy reduction, since this must be a characteristic of all forms of life"...

During the present century [i.e.- the 20th century] a few physicists have tried to define life. Bernal, Schroedinger, and Wigner all came to the same general conclusion, that life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form".

------------------------

Did you bother to read it, cowspwn, or did you skim it when you realized it involved *gasp* science. If you read it congratulations, you have read 1/3 of a page about a theory that has been addressed by thousands of pages of intelligent discourse. BTW- the term "Gaia Hypothesis" was named after the Greek goddess Ge because her name was the root of the terms "geology" and "geography"-- the hypothesis examines data from the earth sciences as well as biology.

I get SO TIRED of people posting demeaning, sarcastic comments about things they've made NO EFFORT AT ALL to understand. I know I post some harsh comments about Christianity here, but I've at least read quite a bit of the New Testament, discussed it with monks and priests and tried to understand it.


I have no problem at all with people critiquing the theory scientifically, or saying there are no spiritual implications, or saying that the implications feel intuitively wrong and another belief system works better.

Like you said - not all life is on the skin. Bacteria can been found on the ocean's floor, in volcanic vents, with toxic gases abounding... and no sunshine. However, I agree the "skin" needs sun.

IDIOT?? LMAO