Birth of Earth

Not Found

The requested URL /img.php...122_1176lo.jpg was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.3 (CentOS) Server at img134.imagevenue.com Port 80
 
Xelios said:
Topic is about meteors being seeds of LIFE, not PLANETS. Try again (or better yet, don't).
Click to expand...
i know also that this topic says meteroids broght the seeds of life.
but if we see as my theory that meteroids are itself seeds of planets. this topic also help in my theory that meteroids may be seeds of planets as they have amino acid.
 
jsispat said:
i know also that this topic says meteroids broght the seeds of life.
but if we see as my theory that meteroids are itself seeds of planets. this topic also help in my theory that meteroids may be seeds of planets as they have amino acid.
Click to expand...
It doesn't help your theory, because amino acids aren't necessary for a planet to form. In fact, Earth is the only planet we know of with amino acids on it. If amino acids were part of 'seeds of planets' they would be on every planet.
 
Thread is too long for a later comer to read all. Link:
http://img226.imagevenue.com/img.php..._122_394lo.jpg
worked for me and seems only with small impossibilities in part about presumably ingested molecules converting the pre existing life on Earth to L (instead of R) isomers. I.e. I can believe it possible, but unlikely, that rudiments of bio-geneses did come from space, but somewhere life originated from non-life.

I can even believe that a small mass, which could be called an asteroid or meteorite could have wandered into our solar system, and helped "nucleate"a planet, but that too is very unlikely. Certainly the fact that all recovered ones have the same age strongly does indicate they are the residue of some now fragmented planet, not the cause of planet formation.

Is this jsipat character claiming something more than that these two improbable possibilities did happen? If not, what is all the reaction about?

Sorry, but I would like to know, without reading most of what seems to be a pointless thread. - Thanks in advance for help me avoid that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jsispat claims the Earth is 'alive' and that it grew from a seed meteor. The 'evidence' for this is that Earth has a crust like a tree has bark and so the Earth must be alive also. Other similarities between the Earth and living organisms have been offered. He is a grade 10 nutter. (Or see my alternative 'psychology student' hypothesis in post #231.
 
Thanks.
Ophiolite said:
jsispat claims the Earth is 'alive' and that it grew from a seed meteor. ...
Click to expand...
Well that is obviously false. Living organisms reproduce their own kind. Earth did not send several meteors out of the solar system (Pioneer 1 being the first thing Earth sent out, but is not a "meteor."). Thus, if life was seeded on Earth by some extra solar visit, it was by some rocket ship crashing (or soft landing on it) long ago. Yes, that must be it as it explains why the "sperm of life" did not get cooked on the way down thru the atmosphere. :eek:

I wonder how long it will take Earth's "distant children" to evolve their own "jsipat" to tell them the truth? :shrug:

Thanks again for bringing me up to speed on this important thread. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Neptune was originally a captured comet, and it strongly influences the solar system as a whole because its capture changed the solar system’s polarity. Uranus and pluto are also captures. The ancients probably knew about these planets but they did not include them in their astronomical works because they knew they weren't 'true' members of our solar system. The ancients mention 7 planets. The sun and moon are included in these 7 because of the geocentric beliefs in those days. The sun and the moon are substitutes for two hidden (ethereal) planets, one between Mercury and the Sun, and the other near the Moon.

Scientists' definition of life says that if they reproduce, then they are lifeforms. In this case planets and galaxies would actually be lifeforms because they reproduce (by division like cells), although it happens very slowly of course.
 
Yorda said:
Scientists' definition of life says that if they reproduce, then they are lifeforms. In this case planets and galaxies would actually be lifeforms because they reproduce (by division like cells), although it happens very slowly of course.
Click to expand...
I think more important than reproduction is the ability to pass information to the next generation. Reproduction is just the mechanism for that, and without the ability to transfer information it's not life.
Billy T said:
Thanks again for bringing me up to speed on this important thread.
Click to expand...
It is truely changing the shape of modern science. Think of the implications, we're on a living thing floating through a sea of planet-sperm. That's deep. I wonder which ancestor planet ejaculated our asteroid belt into existance. Maybe it was sterile? Otherwise those planet-sperm-seeds would have formed new planets by now. It's a great mystery.
 
Xelios said:
It doesn't help your theory, because amino acids aren't necessary for a planet to form. In fact, Earth is the only planet we know of with amino acids on it. If amino acids were part of 'seeds of planets' they would be on every planet.
Click to expand...
i never told that amino acid is necessary for a planet to form. my meaning is if this topic is true and meteroids have amino acid they themselves may be seeds because seeds have amino acid and amino acid necessary to produce proteins.
my theory is also saying that meteroids are seeds of planets
actually my whole theory is earth have biological growth only and meteroids are seeds from which it taken birth. very few meteroids can germinate to convert in planets. most metroids doest germinate and few after germination of died in accident or in bang. we have aproch only upto bark of earth that is dead skin or shrinked skin only. mantle and core is real body of earth.
 
Enmos said:
LOL
See what Xelios said.. the article doesn't support your "theory" in any way.
Click to expand...
some part of topic help my theory that meteroids are seeds as they have amino acid necessary to produce proteins. a biolodical term
 
Proteins are not going to generate a living planet. The interior of the Earth is too hot for proteins to remain intact. The inside of the Earth is rock, not an organic entity.
 
Ophiolite said:
Proteins are not going to generate a living planet. The interior of the Earth is too hot for proteins to remain intact. The inside of the Earth is rock, not an organic entity.
Click to expand...
+1

It'd be like throwing tissue paper into an incinerator. Proteins have nothing to do with planets forming.
 
Sometime soon he is going to read about protein folding and then he is going to read something on structural geology and the folds that occur in rocks and he will use that as further evidence.
Oh dear! Did I just give him an idea?
 
jsispat, I've created a small picture to illustrate. The black area represents all the things that contradict your theory. The white area is the stuff that supports your theory. I think I've been very generous with the white.

evidence.png
 
Ophiolite said:
Proteins are not going to generate a living planet. The interior of the Earth is too hot for proteins to remain intact. The inside of the Earth is rock, not an organic entity.
Click to expand...
it is just asumption that inner core is too hot.some physist like keith wilson guess that inner core is cool.
 
Xelios said:
jsispat, I've created a small picture to illustrate. The black area represents all the things that contradict your theory. The white area is the stuff that supports your theory. I think I've been very generous with the white.

evidence.png
Click to expand...
there is no white area in this picture only grey and black area sees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top