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.

 

The ultimate taught of Dec 21 , 2012

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


If life was able to evolve from star dust, then in effect its all alive no? There are no components within our constitutions that are not also found in vast quantities throughout the universe. The stuff we are made of is the stuff the universe is made of. We evolved from the dust. Does that not make the dust our parent of a sort? Forgive my clumsey attempt at being philosophical.




posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 



If life was able to evolve from star dust, then in effect its all alive no?

No. Life did not evolve from star dust. Evolution takes place after life began. The change from no life to life is separate from evolution.


Does that not make the dust our parent of a sort? Forgive my clumsey attempt at being philosophical.

Not clumsy at all. You bring to light, so to speak, one of the great mysteries still to be solve. That mystery is: how did non-living materials become living? Many ideas have been proposed from supernatural causes to chemical processes affected by heat, electricity, and radiation.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


We know where to find the Higgs, we just cant seem to ever find it at home when we call.


Actually I believe you mean we know where we calculate the Higgs should be. Until (if) we find it, it is no more than an elegant physics solution that has a ( I believe) high probability of being correct.

I also think the E8 theory is elegant but being so does not make it correct until proven.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


life involved from space dust and energy, Earth was here for billions of years, you just came into existent few years ago, so dont think Earth is not alive, you might be not alive.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by storm2012
 


What you posted is called a non sequitur. The conclusions do not follow from the arguments.
en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, the issue is what are the properties of life and the difference between living and non-living. So far you've avoided those issues. The Earth does not exhibit properties of life.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Wikipedia is not a reliable source, just so you know, once again, a word is a word, i can make a million meanings out of it.
edit on 1-3-2012 by storm2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kyprian
Hmm. So the Mayans are actually Hindi? Please, is THAT what you're trying to tell me? That they worshipped Hindu gods? Because, try as I might, I just can't find Kali or Shiva, nothing that corresponds to Hindu texts, beliefs or practices, or even anything that could remotely, at stretch, give credence to this. Would LOVE for the proof on this. PROOF, mind you, not something some guy said or some YouTube video..I can make those, too.


ancientvoice.wikidot.com...:the-fourteen-worlds

Danava Maya's connection with the Meso American Mayans It is impossible to ignore the etymological similarity of Maya with the Mayans of Meso America. The Mayan civilization is known for their astronomical systems (like the Mayan calender) and predictions based on them. Researchers are still not sure if there is any connection between Maya Danava and the Mayans of Meso-America. My analysis shows that the term 'Maya' was not just the name of a person but that of a tribe (the Maaya tribe / the Maayas) but applied to the members of this tribe who lived at different period of time. There are also many direct and indirect evidence showing the interaction of ancient Indians with Meso America through ancient sea-trade networks in huge Indian ships capable of carrying 500 or more people. Besides this, Human Genome Project shows a north-eastern migration starting from India, through Tibet, Mongolia, Russia, North America, Meso America and South America.Analyzing the ancient Indian literature, this migration could be identified with the Naga-Suparna, Danava-Deva migration from ancient India in the north-eastern direction mentioned in the Indian scriptures. This will be discussed in a different article.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by storm2012
 


You may choose to misuse the language as you misuse logic.

Still the Earth is not living.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Your link is bad.

There is no connection based on language, artifacts, architecture, or anything else.




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


The Earth is not living? I hope I misunderstood what you meant by this.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The problem here is that no one can seem to differentiate between existence and life.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by storm2012
 


You may choose to misuse the language as you misuse logic.

Still the Earth is not living.


I am confused by your statement that Earth is not living.
What do you mean by something that is living?
Thanks



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sykonot
 


What is hard to understand with the statement that the Earth is not living?

Are you confusing this with the idea that there is life on Earth?

The Earth itself shows no properties associated with life.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sykonot
The problem here is that no one can seem to differentiate between existence and life.


As I see it everything as inter dependent and connected.
I believe everything is alive and that life force runs through everything - Without life nothing would occur - The planets would not spin etc. There are higher levels of life than we yet we measure all by our limited perspective.
I do not believe the Universe just happened by chance.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Living an life are defined here:
en.wikipedia.org...

The Earth itself has none of these properties. There may be living things on the Earth, but the Earth itself does not exhibit any of the properties of life.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 



I believe everything is alive and that life force runs through everything - Without life nothing would occur - The planets would not spin etc. There are higher levels of life than we yet we measure all by our limited perspective.

The spinning of the planets has nothing to do with life or a as yet to be found "life force". It is a simple mechanical property.

The Sun is not alive and it spins. The Moon is not alive and it spins.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by sykonot
 


What is hard to understand with the statement that the Earth is not living?

Are you confusing this with the idea that there is life on Earth?

The Earth itself shows no properties associated with life.


Yes but what is the Earth composed of both internally and externally - we are a part of the Earth as the Earth is a part of us we are inter dependent - The Earth has movemment and contains energy. If Earth is not living then it would not have any activity - the soil is alive - It is not just some chance chamical reaction etc that fails to explain our own Intelligence and purpose and also Earths purpose but that is another topic science can not address



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet
 



I believe everything is alive and that life force runs through everything - Without life nothing would occur - The planets would not spin etc. There are higher levels of life than we yet we measure all by our limited perspective.

The spinning of the planets has nothing to do with life or a as yet to be found "life force". It is a simple mechanical property.

The Sun is not alive and it spins. The Moon is not alive and it spins.


Your definition is your own I feel perhaps to make a certain point which I do get - Yet if Earth has mechanical propertys do you really believe that is pure chance?
I do get that we are sentient intelligent beings as opposed to that which is not yet to say the Sun is not living seems crazy to me - no insult intended.
If something is not alive then surely it is dead and the Sun is certainly not dead - could you explain better and deeper please?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet
 


Living an life are defined here:
en.wikipedia.org...

The Earth itself has none of these properties. There may be living things on the Earth, but the Earth itself does not exhibit any of the properties of life.


Again you do what all science does ie divide everything - The Earth exhibits us are we not a property of life?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


once again Wikipedia is not a source, your not a source either, look at Earth, it has water, air, all type of minerals, that your own body needs to survive man, its like your mother, it feeds you, so respect Earth and believe its existence. This is why our humanity is going down the drain, because no one wants to believe in thing that already exist and its there for us and your one of them. You should understand one thing, without Earth you wouldn't have been here and you wouldn't be on ATS either, so thank Earth.




top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join