If the Sun creates life then...

[fiat_money]

is the sun itself "alive"?...

No, it doesn't satisfy the basic requirements to be considered "alive"; reproduction/evolution, homeostasis, metabolization, responding to stimuli, etc.

Just because a chemical reaction occurs within something and produces something doesn't mean it's alive.

 

[perspective@100]

No, it doesn't satisfy the basic requirements to be considered "alive"; reproduction/evolution, homeostasis, metabolization, responding to stimuli, etc.

Just because a chemical reaction occurs within something and produces something doesn't mean it's alive.

Hilarious, the sun does all those things and more. Reproduction? It has created pretty much everything. Evolution? I don't know how you consider that a standard but without the sun nothing would have evolved at all. The Idea from Homeostasis probably came from the sun sustaining our solar system. Metabolism is in direct relation to Energy-from the sun. Responding to stimuli? We all know the sun moves and reacts in many different ways in outer space.

Your basically proving the sun is alive more than I am.

 

[fiat_money]

Hilarious, the sun does all those things and more. Reproduction? It has created pretty much everything. Evolution? I don't know how you consider that a standard but without the sun nothing would have evolved at all. The Idea from Homeostasis probably came from the sun sustaining our solar system. Metabolism is in direct relation to Energy-from the sun. Responding to stimuli? We all know the sun moves and reacts in many different ways in outer space.

Your basically proving the sun is alive more than I am.

The term "reproduction", has the prefix "re-" in it, this makes it significantly different from "production"; for the Sun to be reproducing, it would have to make other "Suns". A product of a chemical/nuclear reaction is not the same as offspring. So, the Sun fails to reproduce. It also fails to evolve as an organism, because it has no offspring. Unless the Sun has some form of sensor or receptor that detects changes in its environment and responds accordingly, the Sun also fails to perform homeostasis. Otherwise, the Sun is performs as much "homeostasis" as a rock. Since the Sun does not break down organic material to obtain energy, the Sun does not metabolize. Simply the occurrence of chemical/nuclear reactions is not enough to qualify as metabolizing.

Can you elaborate on the "We all know the sun moves and reacts in many different ways in outer space." statement? Are you referring to gravitational forces or orbiting?

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

providing solar energy doesn't mean the sun "created" the lifeforms on earth

hope that helps

 

[perspective@100]

The more "Scientific" your arguement becomes the more I see you accept whatever is told to you (no disrespect). You can learn all there is to know in the world and still know less then 1% of all knowledge that exist. Reproduction once again is the specialty of the sun. The sun is a star and there are more stars than you can count.
The Sun or any star goes through stages of life examples include neutron star, red giants, and white dwarfs.. If the sun responds to gravity how is that not a response? The sun not only responds to the environment it "IS" the environment. Without the sun how would our solar system sustain homeostasis? you Give the sun no credit, but it deserves all the credit otherwise you would be in the dark and frozen. Your describing metabolism as if it would exist without the sun so that makes no sense to me. Saying "Simply the occurence" is pretty much writing it off because you dont have a clue of where it came from and why it does what it does. It eases the mind when things are not understood so we simply take things for granted and continue with life as if they have no significance.

The sun reacting in outer space is shown through ofcourse the obvious gravity, but what about sun flares and sun spots? The tremondous amount of what we know as radiation and tons of light spectrums? Heat? This is all in science text books as if we have been to the sun, but we all know we can't even get close to it.

providing solar energy doesn't mean the sun "created" the lifeforms on earth

hope that helps

Do you know the odds of life being created "without" solar energy? Goose egg...

 

[anthony7q]

is the sun itself "alive"?

Just something I've been thinking about. We are said to be made of ancient star dust.

The stars in the sky are often refered to as our distant relatives. What if "life" as we know

it is not a true definition of the term. How can the basis of all life not be considered alive?

We speak in scientific terms to describe life, but as technology constantly changes and

science is re-written as well, when will we realize the true power behind the sun?

As we continue to break down energy particles and discover new levels of energy, when will

we realize energy itself is alive or that life is measured by decay vs time of existence.

Time is simply an illusion that we use to describe the decay of the present.

Technically everything physical posseses some form of energy that if redifined could be considered alive.

When you think of soil and the life that comes from it and the combination of microscopic

life forms that live in it, how can we derive that soil itself is inanimate?

Water can be argued to be alive as well. The sun accompanied by water and soil do generous things

on this planet we call earth.

Did our ancestors have it right by worshiping the sun? Was studying the stars in

ancient times a way to communicate with civilizations that may never fully understand the message.

Who knows? Today, do we worship chemicals? Do we really know anything at all.

An educated person vs. a person who is not may seem more intelligent, but how do you measure

something like intelligence? We all had the book smart friend who could get straight A's

but had no common sense what so ever. (air head)

We consider the lives we live normal or abnormal by the standards placed before us.

Rituals and traditions overpower our collective existance. These same rituals have

meanings most that follow them don't understand. If everyone followed tradition

nothing would ever change. Every invention is an example of someone being different.

People who think in a less conventional manner are either seen as weird or extremeley smart,

so what does that say for everyone else? No one wants to be considered a follower

but in some form or fashion we all are.

Why accept what is? We have all been fooled...

Our ancient ancestors knew the difference between astronomy and physics. By studying astronomy using the great pyramids they learned all about physics also because physics is the study of astronomy on a microscopic level.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

Do you know the odds of life being created "without" solar energy? Goose egg...

There are more than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, stars in the known universe.

The odds of life forming on billions of planets is very high.

But you're stuck in the "Wow! This pothole is the perfect size for this puddle!" fallacy, so you're not going to understand this.

 

[perspective@100]

@Anthony7Q,

you dont have to quote the subject of the thread lol, but I understand what your saying. If thats true we all know the speed of light is measurable and looking at stars farther away can take us back in time. Do we go back in time as we break down and look into matter? How far does matter break down if space goes on forever?

 

[perspective@100]

There are more than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, stars in the known universe.

The odds of life forming on billions of planets is very high.

But you're stuck in the "Wow! This pothole is the perfect size for this puddle!" fallacy, so you're not going to understand this.

Haha, really Ktulu? Really? Your just satisfied with knowing everything about the puddle and nothing about the pothole.

 

[perspective@100]

he didn't deny that those stars are alive either.

I personally think stars are in a sense alive, like a plant. They're stationary, but they are born, and they do die. Through life and death they interact with the universe around them, both positively and negatively. sounds pretty alive to me.

An open mind...

 

[JokerzWyld]

The sun has the ability to evolve as do most stars. They go from red giants, to white dwarfs, etc. As far as reproducing goes, we don't know if the sun is capable of that or not since it outlives almost everything. Who knows when or if a phenomenon like that may happen? For all we know the sun may expand into a red giant and spark Jupiter into a star. Would that not be reproduction?? The standards of the universe in relation to life would have to operate on a much grander scale than those we live by here on Earth. So much is beyond our understanding.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

I personally think stars are in a sense alive, like a plant.

A plant that's on fire, maybe.

Or more accurately, a plant that is constantly in a state of plasma flux, burning in space with fusion and fission reactions.

They're stationary,

Stars are not stationary.

but they are born, and they do die. Through life and death they interact with the universe around them, both positively and negatively. sounds pretty alive to me.

They're not born in the same sense that a living thing is born. Nor do they die in that sense.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

For all we know the sun may expand into a red giant and spark Jupiter into a star. Would that not be reproduction??

No, it wouldn't. Jupiter's not the offspring of Sol. It's a collection of gases that got caught in the star's gravity.

 

[soul rattler]

Threadstarter, you're going to have to present your own criteria for "life" because fiatmoney gave you plenty of criteria and you dismissed them just because they contradicted your argument.

Just because the sun contributes to "life" doesn't mean that it created life all on its own. Other factors are involved.

And did you just imply that every star in the universe came from the sun?

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

Stars are born of fire and ice.

they're not.

 

[anthony7q]

without the sun there would be no life. case closed.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

without the sun there would be no life.

there would be life on billions of other planets orbiting suitable stars.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

without stars there would be no life

so stars must be alive

life actually comes from non-life in simple chemical reactions

the study of this field is called abiogenesis

 

[whar67]

Without water there would be no life on earth.

Without Oxygen there would be no life on earth.

Without the sun there would be no life on Earth.

While life requires components to support it and allow it to flourish that does not those components share the characteristic of life.

By the logic presented here males can not exist without females therefore all females are males. An entities reliance on another does not transfer properties from one entity to an other.

 

[perspective@100]

life actually comes from non-life in simple chemical reactions

the study of this field is called abiogenesis

this makes no sense

Threadstarter, you're going to have to present your own criteria for "life" because fiatmoney gave you plenty of criteria and you dismissed them just because they contradicted your argument.

Just because the sun contributes to "life" doesn't mean that it created life all on its own. Other factors are involved.

And did you just imply that every star in the universe came from the sun?

Did you read my responses? I thought they were valid... Matter of opinion. I implied the sun is reproducted.

without the sun there would be no life. case closed.

The question was "is the sun alive?"