fiat_money;1996073 said:
The underlined is true, I've never stated otherwise. What I have stated is that although energy composes living organisms, that does not mean energy or everything with energy is also a living organism.
I'm not limiting my distiction of
life to "
living organisms" as organisms are defined distinctly in Biology. I never said energy was what we consider an organism at all. I would be more inclined to say it would be easier to describe energy on a spiritual level, but I'm not a religious person. If you consider how energy works, the abundance of it, the various forms of energy , it's ability to create organic life, and its power to destroy it. Energy is much more than most can fathom.
fiat_money;1996073 said:
The chemical/nuclear processes of the sun, its atomic makeup, mass, gravity, magnetic field, etc, are all known; you are saying that these known inanimate components of the Sun are alive. This means you are making false inferences about that which is known.
They are only false because your definition of "alive" is limited to biological organisms. They are all alive with energy.
To break it down even further read on: (what I think)
Energy is the basic building block of all things. Matter could not exist without energy.
Time itself is a direct result of energy creating matter. If there were no matter to decay there would be no way to measure time. Nothing would exist. For anything to exist you must have energy. Therefore energy is alive because without it nothing would exist. Energy has created Life and it sustains it. Without it you have nothing.
fiat_money;1996073 said:
Making up things about that which is already known is not "discovery". "Discovery" would be observing and/or proving something previously unknown.
So they have discovered something about life? Please feel free to enlighten the rest of us on what that is. All they have "proved" is by limiting the variables associated with a certain term "Life", it can be classified however they see fit with whatever requirements they choose it to have.
fiat_money;1996073 said:
Ignorance of a subject is not the same as innovation. Just because someone knows how a process works doesn't mean they have been "brainwashed".
The "brainwash" comes from believing there is only one process to get the desired answer. Also, to believe this process is far superior to any other closes the mind to ideas from other processes. If the governing body is one "superior" process, all other processes may as well be void.
*{this is an edit}
Off Topic
*
After going over my previous statement I realized my math teachers used to hate me in elementary as I would do my homework and get the answers from simpler easier equations. Teachers always wanted equations done their way which may have been long and tedious, but I refused because I could always find what they called a short cut. They never taught the short cuts but I could always find them. Getting solutions with less work has always made sense to me its more efficient and allows more time for other things. If we are getting the same answers what difference does it make, I often said.
fiat_money;1996073 said:
Anyone can come up with an illogical unsubstantiated theory such as yourself and claim it means they are "thinking outside of the box"; this doesn't make their theory any more logical or substantiated.
You mean hypothesis?^