It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

you have proven nothing, but the fact you cannot grasp what a speculative theory is.
Also, you deflect. I will deal with you when you answer this:
i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
IN WHAT PARALLEL UNIVERSE DO I HAVE TO PROVE WHAT I DIDNT SAY? AT LEAST ANSWER THAT.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

you have proven nothing, but the fact you cannot grasp what a speculative theory is.
Also, you deflect. I will deal with you when you answer this:
i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
IN WHAT PARALLEL UNIVERSE DO I HAVE TO PROVE WHAT I DIDNT SAY? AT LEAST ANSWER THAT.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Neither the earth nor the wind is alive. Though it has some life like properties.

But then again, so does lye and olive oil if you mix them right.


In fact, all the life like properties of the Earth can be observed in a mixture of lye and olive oil with a few other simple chemicals.


What really makes something alive is its ability to reproduce and carry on information from one generation to the next. Wind, and the Earth, cannot do this.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND:
What is the question you have answered?
Please quote my question. and then quote your answer. If you cannot do this. Please leave.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac

Originally posted by BBalazs

I said the virus is a un-cellular life form, it is an accepted theory. many scientist say this, in fact it is generally accepted.


Actually it's generally accepted that viruses are NOT alive. They do not require energy to sustain themselves, they are not composed of cells and they require a host to do anything other than collect dust (that's funny because viruses are much smaller than dust particles).

yeah. quote a legitimate scientist clearly stating that, and I may believe you.
this is not what i have found.
it is the case o fungi, plant again.



You know I hate to make someone eat thir words, but you're asking for it now. ^_^

serc.carleton.edu...

Typically, viruses are dormant (dead) unless in contact with a host cell. Which means your one and only example of cell-less organisms cannot survive WITHOUT a cellular organism. How's that for irony?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac

Originally posted by BBalazs

I said the virus is a un-cellular life form, it is an accepted theory. many scientist say this, in fact it is generally accepted.


Actually it's generally accepted that viruses are NOT alive. They do not require energy to sustain themselves, they are not composed of cells and they require a host to do anything other than collect dust (that's funny because viruses are much smaller than dust particles).

yeah. quote a legitimate scientist clearly stating that, and I may believe you.
this is not what i have found.
it is the case o fungi, plant again.



You know I hate to make someone eat thir words, but you're asking for it now. ^_^

serc.carleton.edu...

Typically, viruses are dormant (dead) unless in contact with a host cell. Which means your one and only example of cell-less organisms cannot survive WITHOUT a cellular organism. How's that for irony?

this proves what exactly?
they are dormant when not within a host. then they are alive.
so both dead and alive this proves, i say.
say one where it says they are dead, and come back. at least your trying to do your homework.
your not to bright are you?
you are so hell bent on proving a SPECULATIVE theory wrong, that your ego has taken over and you are speewing hate.
You have no quoted me an anything of substance, you just hallucinate away.
STOP!
Listen to me.
Reread the OP.
This is a speculative theory
It is not about if it is true or not.
Never was.
Its about if it was true, how would it be?
Is your hissy fit now over?

edit on 21-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND:
What is the question you have answered?
Please quote my question. and then quote your answer. If you cannot do this. Please leave.


"Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)"

The wind is not alive, as it lacks the proteins and amino acids and DNA that living creatures not only typically feature, but require.

There. Your question, our answer.

Class dismissed.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Like most things on this Planet Earth we do not understand everything. In my humble opinion the Earth is almost like a giant living organism. Much like a jelleyfish is made of thousands of different organisms. All working together to make the combined organism work. All thinking individually but all doing their part to add to the greater "body".

If one has to think of the wind I would rather say it is more like the blood of the Planet. Along with the water they form together the perfect living conditions which supports life to grow on this tiny rock



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


I refuse to answer any more of your foolish questions. Read the article, then go play with your Legos.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ShaunSwindon
 


In a way...but heat and cold and chemicals that, alone, would poison our bodies do not create life in and of themselves.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The biology of the wind has been brought up as definitely not conforming to our expectations of life in previous comments, this i have to agree with since it is undeniable..

However, the wind is life as an ecosystem , that is to say the weather conforms to our definition of open living systems, it is ever evolving, it does have its own state of equilibrium, it does grow and it does change, our whole weather system is a macro-system made up from (or containing) many micro-ecosystems.

So the problem now becomes 'are ecosystems actual living things ' ? Again i would argue yes as if we examine ourselves we find that our own bodies are a reflection of a massive micro-ecosystem. So maybe it is that we are the cells that make up the weather macro-system, if this is the case we should contain a 'piece' akin to our own cell DNA which the wind is a product of...hmmm

Would just like to point out that my comment deliberately addressed our whole weather system as living rather than just the wind.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


I theorize that you are in fact a...fish. You cannot prove me wrong, for it is mere speculation (according to you). Thus, you are a fish.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND:
What is the question you have answered?
Please quote my question. and then quote your answer. If you cannot do this. Please leave.


"Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)"

The wind is not alive, as it lacks the proteins and amino acids and DNA that living creatures not only typically feature, but require.

There. Your question, our answer.

Class dismissed.


You have no quoted me an anything of substance, you just hallucinate away.
STOP!
Listen to me.
Reread the OP.
This is a speculative theory
It is not about if it is true or not.
Never was.
Its about if it was true, how would it be?
Is your hissy fit now over?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate
The biology of the wind has been brought up as definitely not conforming to our expectations of life in previous comments, this i have to agree with since it is undeniable..

However, the wind is life as an ecosystem , that is to say the weather conforms to our definition of open living systems, it is ever evolving, it does have its own state of equilibrium, it does grow and it does change, our whole weather system is a macro-system made up from (or containing) many micro-ecosystems.

So the problem now becomes 'our ecosystems actual living things ' ? Again i would argue yes as if we examine ourselves we find that our own bodies are a reflection of a massive micro-ecosystem. So maybe it is that we are the cells that make up the weather macro-system, if this is the case we should contain a 'piece' akin to our own cell DNA which the wind is a product of...hmmm

Would just like to point out that my comment deliberately addressed our whole weather system as living rather than just the wind.



We're not talking about the organisms flying in the wind
although if we were, then I would fully agree with you. I love the ecosystems...they are so beautiful. But the wind itself is no more alive than a coffee table.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


I theorize that you are in fact a...fish. You cannot prove me wrong, for it is mere speculation (according to you). Thus, you are a fish.

exactly.
is your hissy fit and demonstration of scientific manliness now over?
or are you going for another tantrum?
You have no quoted me an anything of substance, you just hallucinate away.
STOP!
Listen to me.
Reread the OP.
This is a speculative theory
It is not about if it is true or not.
Never was.
Its about if it was true, how would it be?
Is your hissy fit now over?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND:
What is the question you have answered?
Please quote my question. and then quote your answer. If you cannot do this. Please leave.


"Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)"

The wind is not alive, as it lacks the proteins and amino acids and DNA that living creatures not only typically feature, but require.

There. Your question, our answer.

Class dismissed.


You have no quoted me an anything of substance, you just hallucinate away.
STOP!
Listen to me.
Reread the OP.
This is a speculative theory
It is not about if it is true or not.
Never was.
Its about if it was true, how would it be?
Is your hissy fit now over?


I have quoted and proven endlessly. You have chosen not to listen, but instead accuse me of fallacy without proving me wrong in the slightest. Your only form of evidence turned out to prove exactly what I was saying, instead of supporting you.

As for your claim of this thread's purpose...That isn't the topic of your thread. You asked if the wind was alive, not what would happen if it were. Be more specific with your topics.

Thanks for playing.


*smoking guns...*
edit on CSaturdayam222256f56America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate
The biology of the wind has been brought up as definitely not conforming to our expectations of life in previous comments, this i have to agree with since it is undeniable..

However, the wind is life as an ecosystem , that is to say the weather conforms to our definition of open living systems, it is ever evolving, it does have its own state of equilibrium, it does grow and it does change, our whole weather system is a macro-system made up from (or containing) many micro-ecosystems.

So the problem now becomes 'our ecosystems actual living things ' ? Again i would argue yes as if we examine ourselves we find that our own bodies are a reflection of a massive micro-ecosystem. So maybe it is that we are the cells that make up the weather macro-system, if this is the case we should contain a 'piece' akin to our own cell DNA which the wind is a product of...hmmm

Would just like to point out that my comment deliberately addressed our whole weather system as living rather than just the wind.



We're not talking about the organisms flying in the wind
although if we were, then I would fully agree with you. I love the ecosystems...they are so beautiful. But the wind itself is no more alive than a coffee table.


Ah i was not referring to the organisms either ! Rather i was trying to say that maybe our wind is an attribute of a greater organism (or macro-ecosystem) possesses, i refer to a macro-ecosystem because it would be the only way for us to understand such an organism.


edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate
The biology of the wind has been brought up as definitely not conforming to our expectations of life in previous comments, this i have to agree with since it is undeniable..

However, the wind is life as an ecosystem , that is to say the weather conforms to our definition of open living systems, it is ever evolving, it does have its own state of equilibrium, it does grow and it does change, our whole weather system is a macro-system made up from (or containing) many micro-ecosystems.

So the problem now becomes 'our ecosystems actual living things ' ? Again i would argue yes as if we examine ourselves we find that our own bodies are a reflection of a massive micro-ecosystem. So maybe it is that we are the cells that make up the weather macro-system, if this is the case we should contain a 'piece' akin to our own cell DNA which the wind is a product of...hmmm

Would just like to point out that my comment deliberately addressed our whole weather system as living rather than just the wind.



We're not talking about the organisms flying in the wind
although if we were, then I would fully agree with you. I love the ecosystems...they are so beautiful. But the wind itself is no more alive than a coffee table.


Ah i was not referring to the organisms either ! Rather i was trying to say that maybe our wind is an attribute a greater organism (or macro-ecosystem) possesses, i refer to a macro-ecosystem because it would be the only way for us to understand such an organism.


We would have found some indication by now...wouldn't we?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


PLEASE listen to me.

I put what a virus has, because it is exactly what every living thing has. In other words, it is not an exception but the rule...a rule your wind does not follow.

I will ask one more time: prove your wind has proteins and dna...otherwise, this discussion has no further merit.

i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that.
and quote me on the fairy stuff.
you do realize that virus was in response to your denounce of non cellular life. seems like you have lost the plot of this conversation.
so repeat:i don't have to prove that, as i never said that.
quote me where i said that. i dont have to prove WHAT I NEVER SAID!
and quote me on the fairy stuff.



Your suggestions deserve to be in a fairytale. I will not apologize for saying so. But you asked a question (which is in the topic) and we have not only given you an answer, we have PROVEN it.

But you refuse to accept the answer, preferring to argue as if the answer is wrong. That is why I'm asking for contrary evidence, in case you have a reason to deny our answer. But it appears you have no reason other than being obstinate. That's okay...we've made our argument, clear as day.

At long last, thanks for playing.

edit on CSaturdayam474735f35America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND:
What is the question you have answered?
Please quote my question. and then quote your answer. If you cannot do this. Please leave.


"Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)"

The wind is not alive, as it lacks the proteins and amino acids and DNA that living creatures not only typically feature, but require.

There. Your question, our answer.

Class dismissed.


You have no quoted me an anything of substance, you just hallucinate away.
STOP!
Listen to me.
Reread the OP.
This is a speculative theory
It is not about if it is true or not.
Never was.
Its about if it was true, how would it be?
Is your hissy fit now over?


That isn't the topic of your thread. You asked if the wind was alive, not what would happen if it were. Be more specific with your topics.

Thanks for playing.


*smoking guns...*

come on man, give me a break did you not see this: (SPECULATIVE) ???????
I though it was pretty obvious.
PS: if it were alive, of course we haven't seen proof so far, the speculation is if it is alive, how could you show it to be. etc.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate
The biology of the wind has been brought up as definitely not conforming to our expectations of life in previous comments, this i have to agree with since it is undeniable..

However, the wind is life as an ecosystem , that is to say the weather conforms to our definition of open living systems, it is ever evolving, it does have its own state of equilibrium, it does grow and it does change, our whole weather system is a macro-system made up from (or containing) many micro-ecosystems.

So the problem now becomes 'our ecosystems actual living things ' ? Again i would argue yes as if we examine ourselves we find that our own bodies are a reflection of a massive micro-ecosystem. So maybe it is that we are the cells that make up the weather macro-system, if this is the case we should contain a 'piece' akin to our own cell DNA which the wind is a product of...hmmm

Would just like to point out that my comment deliberately addressed our whole weather system as living rather than just the wind.

read this, in full, it makes predictions:
en.wikipedia.org...

We're not talking about the organisms flying in the wind
although if we were, then I would fully agree with you. I love the ecosystems...they are so beautiful. But the wind itself is no more alive than a coffee table.


Ah i was not referring to the organisms either ! Rather i was trying to say that maybe our wind is an attribute a greater organism (or macro-ecosystem) possesses, i refer to a macro-ecosystem because it would be the only way for us to understand such an organism.


We would have found some indication by now...wouldn't we?


read this, in full, it makes predictions:
en.wikipedia.org...

We're not talking about the organisms flying in the wind although if we were, then I would fully agree with you. I love the ecosystems...they are so beautiful. But the wind itself is no more alive than a coffee table.
edit on 21-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join