If the Sun creates life then...

[KTULU IS BACK]

this makes no sense

that's because you're an uneducated half-wit

 

[perspective@100]

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.

Why not? It makes more sense to say humans as complex as they are derived from a single celled organism than to say the building blocks of life are alive?

that's because you're an uneducated half-wit

I actually liked your point I just don't like you, lol
Your a bright person Ktulu, you just don't care about much and like to insult people so its hard for me to take you seriously.
Even though I know the question of my thread will never be answered with a solid fact as it can't. I just like the discussion. Be a grown up.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

Your question has been answered with a bunch of solid facts that you have dismissed without reason.

 

[Chike]

What does it mean to be alive? I would say yes, the Sun is very much alive. It's as alive as a Sun can be until it's fuel is depleted.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

everything is alive

2pac is not alive

 

[perspective@100]

What does it mean to be alive? I would say yes, the Sun is very much alive. It's as alive as a Sun can be until it's fuel is depleted.

makes sense... Thats what I was wondering, what does it mean to be alive. If everything else is diverse why is life or being alive not diverse. Why is it classified and regulated by known factors when we don't "know" everything. I just think people need to be a little more open minded.

Your question has been answered with a bunch of solid facts that you have dismissed without reason.

I refute these so called answers with the same precedence* that makes them factual. Just because someone says something they learned from a book written by someone who thought they understood something does not make it the all knowing manual of the world. You should know more than anyone about what is taught in schools. You Talk more about everything else more than anyone on this site and I'm sure you did not learn all that from school or maybe you did. Who knows.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

I refute these so called answers with the same presidence that makes them factual.

1. Precedence. Precedence.

2. No, you don't.

Just because someone says something they learned from a book written by someone who thought they understood something does not make it the all knowing manual of the world.

The answers you've rejected aren't just "what somebody read in a book." They're observable and verifiable. You could double-check them yourself, but you're too lazy.

 

[perspective@100]

1. Precedence. Precedence.

2. No, you don't.

The answers you've rejected aren't just "what somebody read in a book." They're observable and verifiable. You could double-check them yourself, but you're too lazy.

thanks for the spelling quiz

Well I observe the sun is alive and it leads to other life. Verify why I'm wrong.

 

[fiat_money]

The more "Scientific" your arguement becomes the more I see you accept whatever is told to you (no disrespect)... 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.

...

The red portion does nothing to substantiate your claim that the sun reproduces. There are more rocks than I can count, and rocks go through stages as well, that doesn't mean rocks reproduce. Rocks are also affected by gravity, but that doesn't mean rocks respond to stimuli. The environment of something, is that which surrounds it. An object (celestial body in this case) cannot be its own environment, for then it would have to be its own surroundings. The solar system is not an organism, so it does not perform homeostasis, unless the solar system "has some form of sensor or receptor that detects changes in its environment and responds accordingly". If everything that contained or underwent a chemical/nuclear reaction was considered an organism, every single atom or molecule in existence would be an organism, and the term would be insignificant. Anything that has mass also has--and can be subjected to--gravity, the Sun simply happens to have a large amount of mass, compared to the things around it. What about solar flares? Solar flares are nothing but phenomena produced by interactions between plasma and magnetic fields. You don't have to be "to" something to observe it. I assume you've never been to the Sun, so your claims about it would automatically be false if being "to" something was required to have knowledge of it.

If I accepted whatever I was told, I wouldn't refute your claims, I'd accept it and think "Despite the flaws with this claim, the Sun must be alive, because perspective@100 said so.".

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

I observe the sun is alive

"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those which do not."

 

[CrownChakra]

I dont know if the sun is alive or any of that shit but our ancestors had it right when they studied the sky an the stars. We have become lost with this overly complex, desire driven world. We have so much knowledge today, but we barely know shit about the universe.

 

[jonlakadeadmic]

I dont know if the sun is alive or any of that shit but our ancestors had it right when they studied the sky an the stars. We have become lost with this overly complex, desire driven world. We have so much knowledge today, but we barely know shit about the universe.

we know a lot more about the universe than they did.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

I dont know if the sun is alive or any of that shit but our ancestors had it right when they studied the sky an the stars. We have become lost with this overly complex, desire driven world. We have so much knowledge today, but we barely know shit about the universe.

wtf are you talking about?

we have more knowledge about the universe than anybody in the past did

 

[Chike]

wtf are you talking about?

we have more knowledge about the universe than anybody in the past did

No way lol...

 

[perspective@100]

@Fiat_money
Haha Nice I like the thought process behind this response, and the colors lol... You would refute my claims because I'm not from a highly prestigious institution or I have no credibility in the field of science. If I was, most people would just accept them because perspective@100 said so. We have been told what makes up life for so long we dont even think of questioning it. Technically some Viruses are not considered living organisms because they dont have their own DNA which simply makes them a free particle. Tell that to someone with HIV. Science is the poor attemp of humans to understand everything around them with a set of rules that is often broken or can not be explained mathmatically on a consistent basis because of numerous no infinite variables.

Just because rocks dont reproduce themselves does not mean they are not reproduced. If you think of Life on a linear plane then I guess you would only limit it to the factors that we are capable of understanding. I'm superseding all previous thought and creating my own. My thoughts could never make sense when applied to todays standard of science because they are not governed by science at all. When people said the "Earth is round" you know the rest. Unfortunately, I dont have the physical proof that most would like to see only my own thoughts. Accepted or unaccepted it makes me no difference.

The environment of something, is that which surrounds it. An object (celestial body in this case) cannot be its own environment, for then it would have to be its own surroundings.

How can you refer to something as a celestial body and say its not alive. Verbally I understand the many uses of the word body but using it in this debate implies that someone somewhere thought of the universe as an entity or something alive. Which directly contradicts your very next statement.

The solar system is not an organism, .

If everything that contained or underwent a chemical/nuclear reaction was considered an organism, every single atom or molecule in existence would be an organism, and the term would be insignificant.

This is my point exactly! We are all connected because everything is alive.

 

[perspective@100]

"Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes from those which do not."

The words "distinguish" and "characteristics" are a part of the human thought process that helps to understand Classification.
When things are "classified" into groups and sections they are easier to understand. That does not make the classification right or wrong it just makes it classified.

You classify your own way and I will classify in my own way... Fair? I admit your way is the more accepted way as well. Better?

 

[perspective@100]

atoms are not alive

energy can not be created or destroyed just converted from one form to another

Thats what science says. Tell me why the building blocks of all things can't sustain life in there own shape and form?
Humans from single cells. No one argued that cells were not alive. Just when you break things down smaller than a single cell does "life" disappear. I find that thought process bogus. Life is there it always has been just like energy just like the sun.

 

[KTULU IS BACK]

The words "distinguish" and "characteristics" are a part of the human thought process that helps to understand Classification.
When things are "classified" into groups and sections they are easier to understand. That does not make the classification right or wrong it just makes it classified.

You classify your own way and I will classify in my own way... Fair? I admit your way is the more accepted way as well. Better?

I'm gonna have to classify you as an ignoramus.

You get proven wrong repeatedly and you refuse to admit it.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Everything is in a state of life in some sense, and also in a state of death in some sense. We then break that down even further into groups to separate things for further distinction.

 

[fiat_money]

@Fiat_money
Haha Nice I like the thought process behind this response, and the colors lol... You would refute my claims because I'm not from a highly prestigious institution or I have no credibility in the field of science. If I was, most people would just accept them because perspective@100 said so. We have been told what makes up life for so long we dont even think of questioning it.

This quote would apply here:

Not quite, the reason things determined or discovered by using the scientific method have influence is because they are replicable/observable/calculable by others. Scientific theories and even laws aren't just accepted at "face value", they are tested repeatedly by others to further substantiate or disprove them. Even I've observed the values of gravity to be correct by using an Atwood machine, therefore if someone told me the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of the Earth was 49m/s^2, I wouldn't believe them, regardless their education. So any "influence" isn't there simply because an individual states something, but because many verified the same thing...

Technically some Viruses are not considered living organisms because they dont have their own DNA which simply makes them a free particle...

The reason it is debated as to whether viruses constitute life or not, is because they satisfy some of the requirements for something to be considered "alive"; the Sun however, does not.

Just because rocks dont reproduce themselves does not mean they are not reproduced...

While rocks may be formed by the cooling of magma or the hardening/compression of sediments, that's not the same as reproduction.

How can you refer to something as a celestial body and say its not alive. Verbally I understand the many uses of the word body but using it in this debate implies that someone somewhere thought of the universe as an entity or something alive. Which directly contradicts your very next statement.

No it doesn't, it merely means the term "body" is not exclusively used to refer to organisms. Bodies of water, bodies of work, blackbody raditation, etc.

If everything that contained or underwent a chemical/nuclear reaction was considered an organism, every single atom or molecule in existence would be an organism, and the term would be insignificant.

This is my point exactly! We are all connected because everything is alive.

Supposing the term "organism" applied to the underlined, terms like "organism" or "alive" would hold no significance, since it would the standard state of being; they'd merely be poor synonyms for "matter".

Summary:

Unfortunately, I dont have the physical proof that most would like to see only my own thoughts...