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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

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.



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?


Maybe our own existence is one such indication ? By examining nature we find a re-occuring pattern of an almost 'russain doll' nature that life possesses, that the outside macrocosm is a result an inside microcosm, maybe we are occupying a microcosm and our weather system is the resulting macrocosm, like 'we are the cells: the weather is the human that is made up by the cells' kind of thing.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthIncarnate
 


At least you're giving me something, unlike that guy over there...

There's patterns in everything. I view it as evidence of a divine design, not of the thing itself being alive.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:01 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?


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)

ok sure you quoted me on saying the wind is a fairy, the wind is a virus, etc.
sure you have. you win.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 





BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND: What is the question you have answered?


I will concentrate to not insult you.



Please quote my question. and then quote your answer



So your question is ...


Is the wind alive, a living organism?


His or her answer, anyway a lot of peoples gave you the same answer.

From WikiWiki


Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure.


And then you say


air is not wind so try again.


And you say we are the weak minds?!

Do yourself a favor and stop this nonsense right now before you'll loose all credibility on here.

And if it is on a philosophical note you did answwer this question, don't put science trough this as you cannot obviously not understand basic notions.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by TruthIncarnate
 


At least you're giving me something, unlike that guy over there...

There's patterns in everything. I view it as evidence of a divine design, not of the thing itself being alive.

yeah i didn't give you anything. sure. since you were arguing non existence of a theory.
it took you 7 long pages to realize you cannot read this: (SPECULATIVE) and understand what it means.
but hey, some are slow, some are fast.
And you are right on all point.
there, there.
you don't even have to write anything else,
I presume you are right on every point from now on.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selyatek
reply to post by BBalazs
 





BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND: What is the question you have answered?


I will concentrate to not insult you.



Please quote my question. and then quote your answer



So your question is ...


Is the wind alive, a living organism?


His or her answer, anyway a lot of peoples gave you the same answer.

From WikiWiki


Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure.


And then you say


air is not wind so try again.


And you say we are the weak minds?!

Do yourself a favor and stop this nonsense right now before you'll loose all credibility on here.

And if it is on a philosophical note you did answwer this question, don't put science trough this as you cannot obviously not understand basic notions.




Thank you, sir. Thank you. *cries* I am so glad I am not the only here exasperated by the redundancy of this discussion. I will be able to leave in peace now...




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by TruthIncarnate
 


At least you're giving me something, unlike that guy over there...

There's patterns in everything. I view it as evidence of a divine design, not of the thing itself being alive.

yeah i didn't give you anything. sure. since you were arguing non existence of a theory.
it took you 7 long pages to realize you cannot read this: (SPECULATIVE) and understand what it means.
but hey, some are slow, some are fast.
And you are right on all point.
there, there.
you don't even have to write anything else,
I presume you are right on every point from now on.


Speculative is unproductive, when concerning something that is impossible. If you were to consider the possibility of the impossibility of the possible's probability, that too would be unproductive.

Just admit it, you've lost the point of this discussion. And if you want to discuss the effects...by all means, start a new thread.

But I won't be there.
edit on CSaturdayam252508f08America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)

just live him. he is clearly having a sissy fit, read back the last few pages.
he doesn't understand this point: (SPECULATIVE)
apparently it wasn't clear enough for him.
he also will put words in you mouth, so i would just leave him be.
he is obviously itching for a fight, words are of no substance to him.
he cares not, what you say, just what he hears (hallucinates) and just goes on arguing with himself without listing.
he will now obviously tell us all what we can or cannot speculate upon.
he is an obvious god/ tyrant/ whatever suites you.
and as most intelligent people have done with gods, we just ignore him from now own



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by Selyatek
reply to post by BBalazs
 





BUT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR WEAK MIND: What is the question you have answered?


I will concentrate to not insult you.



Please quote my question. and then quote your answer



So your question is ...


Is the wind alive, a living organism?


His or her answer, anyway a lot of peoples gave you the same answer.

From WikiWiki


Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure.


And then you say


air is not wind so try again.


And you say we are the weak minds?!

Do yourself a favor and stop this nonsense right now before you'll loose all credibility on here.

And if it is on a philosophical note you did answwer this question, don't put science trough this as you cannot obviously not understand basic notions.




Thank you, sir. Thank you. *cries* I am so glad I am not the only here exasperated by the redundancy of this discussion. I will be able to leave in peace now...


quoting out of context and cherry picking.
you missed the part about (SPECULATIVE).
good for you.
You have some logic, but no mind, no creation. you are an empty shell.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by TruthIncarnate
 


At least you're giving me something, unlike that guy over there...

There's patterns in everything. I view it as evidence of a divine design, not of the thing itself being alive.

yeah i didn't give you anything. sure. since you were arguing non existence of a theory.
it took you 7 long pages to realize you cannot read this: (SPECULATIVE) and understand what it means.
but hey, some are slow, some are fast.
And you are right on all point.
there, there.
you don't even have to write anything else,
I presume you are right on every point from now on.


Speculative is unproductive, when concerning something that is impossible. If you were to consider the possibility of the impossibility of the possible's probability, that too would be unproductive.

Just admit it, you've lost the point of this discussion. And if you want to discuss the effects...by all means, start a new thread.

But I won't be there.
edit on CSaturdayam252508f08America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

I habe not lost, you have: you mind.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



Well then, why would you speculate on something that has no answer, since you aren't trying to prove anything? Speculating whether the wind is an organism or not is an entirely fruitless exercise on a website where people find answers to difficult questions. It's like putting a pothole in a racetrack.

If the point of this is to say as much as you can without actually answering the question, then it is a fool's errand. God speed.

edit on CSaturdayam040413f13America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)

you are a moron.
I will now quote the opening argument:
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)


Well then, why would you speculate on something that has no answer, since you aren't tying to prove anything? Speculating whether the wind is an organism or not is an entirely fruitless exercise on a website where people find answers to difficult questions. It's like putting a pothole in a racetrack.

If the point of this is to say as much as you can without actually answering the question, then it is a fool's errand. God speed.


you are a moron.
I will once again quote the opening point in FULL.
Here it is:
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

what part of speculative do you not understand?
And who are you to tell anyone, what we can speculate on?
Really who are you, to tell others what they can and cannot do?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



Well then, why would you speculate on something that has no answer, since you aren't trying to prove anything? Speculating whether the wind is an organism or not is an entirely fruitless exercise on a website where people find answers to difficult questions. It's like putting a pothole in a racetrack.

If the point of this is to say as much as you can without actually answering the question, then it is a fool's errand. God speed.

edit on CSaturdayam040413f13America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

what a moron. after 8 pages he understand this word: SPECULATIVE.
And he thinks he is right.
He also clearly lies and misquotes.
I hoped everyone has learned their lesson on star child, the dictator. No its not an insult, its pretty much a fact.
Our thread is once again free and liberated from closed minded people!
Hurrah!



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)

you are a moron.
I will now quote the opening argument:
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)


Well then, why would you speculate on something that has no answer, since you aren't tying to prove anything? Speculating whether the wind is an organism or not is an entirely fruitless exercise on a website where people find answers to difficult questions. It's like putting a pothole in a racetrack.

If the point of this is to say as much as you can without actually answering the question, then it is a fool's errand. God speed.


you are a moron.
I will once again quote the opening point in FULL.
Here it is:
Is the wind alive, a living organism? (speculative)

what part of speculative do you not understand?
And who are you to tell anyone, what we can speculate on?
Really who are you, to tell others what they can and cannot do?



I'm a moron?
You make me laugh. Who are you to judge me, after your mighty post?

In essence, considering the topic and the purpose of this thread, it is logically unproductive. If you want to spend your time arguing in circles when the answer is right there...well, good luck.

I gave it a go. I didn't realize it was a contest of fighting conclusive evidence.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
OMG, when I first read this thread title, I thought it said, "Is the wind having an orgasm?" I was like, "WTF?"



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



Well then, why would you speculate on something that has no answer, since you aren't trying to prove anything? Speculating whether the wind is an organism or not is an entirely fruitless exercise on a website where people find answers to difficult questions. It's like putting a pothole in a racetrack.

If the point of this is to say as much as you can without actually answering the question, then it is a fool's errand. God speed.

edit on CSaturdayam040413f13America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)


Hmm, interesting point, what i would say is that our ability to speculate allows us to examine possibilities rather than definitive proof. Furthermore i would say this website is catered to such a function (although not limited to) i mean i hardly see a post on ATS which has longitudinal aspects to its investigation and has a large portion of primary data.

Anyway im not here to change anyone's opinions, and im sure you are the same in that regard.
EDIT: ah starchild ignore the name calling, im not on anyones side but c'mon people, name calling..really?!
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
You must have seen this?



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Starchild23

Originally posted by TruthIncarnate

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Logical fallacy. If something is impossible to prove, there is no speculation on how it could be proven.


Excuse me ? The nature of speculation is that we are not trying to prove anything, furthermore how would you argue such a thing is impossible to prove ?

Your own comment is a logical fallacy in that it incorporates circular logic to validate itself.
edit on 21-1-2012 by TruthIncarnate because: (no reason given)



Well then, why would you speculate on something that has no answer, since you aren't trying to prove anything? Speculating whether the wind is an organism or not is an entirely fruitless exercise on a website where people find answers to difficult questions. It's like putting a pothole in a racetrack.

If the point of this is to say as much as you can without actually answering the question, then it is a fool's errand. God speed.

edit on CSaturdayam040413f13America/Chicago21 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

what a moron. after 8 pages he understand this word: SPECULATIVE.
And he thinks he is right.
He also clearly lies and misquotes.
I hoped everyone has learned their lesson on star child, the dictator. No its not an insult, its pretty much a fact.
Our thread is once again free and liberated from closed minded people!
Hurrah!


I tried being polite, but I will not be insulted. This is a website where decorum must be maintained (as we are so frequently reminded) and you are not holding with the policy. Consider yourself reported.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join