Thread: There has to be an answer

Originally Posted by juroara

Does the earth reproduce? Sure it does! Think of it this way, everything that you are is the earth, literally. Every part of you - is of the earth. And the other part of you that isn't of the earth, is of the sun.

I recommend the writings of Elizabet Sahtouris

And the matter that makes up every atom in your body was once contained within a tiny singularity before the big bang. What we are arguing is whether the earth is a living organism or not. Production isn't a part of life, reproduction is. I produce shit every day, it means nothing. Unless the Earth mates with another planet and produces an Earth hybrid, I don't think it is alive.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Unless the Earth mates with another planet and produces an Earth hybrid, I don't think it is alive.

Or even if it just splits into two. That'd be a sight.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Unless the Earth mates with another planet and produces an Earth hybrid, I don't think it is alive.

And if someone dies as a virgin, does this mean they were never alive?

Our definition of living is only useful for organic life as we know it on earth. I suspect our definition of living is actually contrived, limiting and entirely man-made

Caprisun, yes it would still be Earth without trees, but trees grew out of it, so if they were destroyed they would just grow again (assuming whatever was there in the first place to make them grow didn't get destroyed too). So what I'm saying is, the conditions are right on Earth for plants to grow from it, slowly through evolution of microorganisms. Even by your self-limiting view, assuming those microorganisms didn't come here on a comet, those microorganisms are PART OF EARTH!
No the Earth (going by your definition) doesn't reproduce, but the stuff the Earth produces, reproduces. And you can't separate the producer from what it produces. They are one in the same.

The currently accepted theory says that the Earth was formed from various particles in space gathering together throughout time, through the forces of gravity. So are you going to separate all those little bits out and go, "Yep. This one's the Earth!" No, because you can't! And I'm not talking physically here. I'm saying you can't proclaim that this particular particle is the essence of the planet. In the same way, you can't claim the rock and magma parts are the essence of the planet, everything else is just excess stuff.

It's an arbitrary line put in place by man, get past it.

Originally Posted by juroara

And if someone dies as a virgin, does this mean they were never alive?

Absolutely not. A human virgin still has the ability to reproduce while the Earth does not.

Originally Posted by tommo

Caprisun, yes it would still be Earth without trees, but trees grew out of it, so if they were destroyed they would just grow again (assuming whatever was there in the first place to make them grow didn't get destroyed too). So what I'm saying is, the conditions are right on Earth for plants to grow from it, slowly through evolution of microorganisms. Even by your self-limiting view, assuming those microorganisms didn't come here on a comet, those microorganisms are PART OF EARTH!
No the Earth (going by your definition) doesn't reproduce, but the stuff the Earth produces, reproduces. And you can't separate the producer from what it produces. They are one in the same.

The currently accepted theory says that the Earth was formed from various particles in space gathering together throughout time, through the forces of gravity. So are you going to separate all those little bits out and go, "Yep. This one's the Earth!" No, because you can't! And I'm not talking physically here. I'm saying you can't proclaim that this particular particle is the essence of the planet. In the same way, you can't claim the rock and magma parts are the essence of the planet, everything else is just excess stuff.

It's an arbitrary line put in place by man, get past it.

There are a lot of things that don't make sense here. And I still don't understand how this is supposed to prove that the Earth is a living organism.

"No the Earth (going by your definition) doesn't reproduce, but the stuff the Earth produces, reproduces. And you can't separate the producer from what it produces."

I can and I did. As I said earlier, I produce shit every day, but after I flush it down the toilet it is no longer a part of me. It is unimportant if life came from Earth matter.

"Even by your self-limiting view, assuming those microorganisms didn't come here on a comet, those microorganisms are PART OF EARTH!"

You mean they live on the Earth. That is an important distinction.

"So are you going to separate all those little bits out and go, "Yep. This one's the Earth!" No, because you can't! And I'm not talking physically here. I'm saying you can't proclaim that this particular particle is the essence of the planet. In the same way, you can't claim the rock and magma parts are the essence of the planet, everything else is just excess stuff."

Well, the Earth is more than a particle, but yes we do name our planets. It's much easier to say "Mars" than "that big red hunk of rock in the sky." Plus it makes it easier for other people to understand you. I am not claiming that inner rocks and magma are the essence of the Earth, I am telling you that they are the essence of the Earth. You've made the mistake of thinking this is a matter of opinion.

"It's an arbitrary line put in place by man, get past it."

What good is science if it has no order? Just as Pluto no longer fits the definition of a planet, Earth does not fit the definition of a living organism. There are no opinions here.