Birth of Earth

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by sureshbansal, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    The Great Australian Bight is part of the 'dead skin of the Earth'. Do you think the bark is worse than it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    how earth formed according to you or latest theory.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    "Mineral Kingdom Has Co-evolved With Life

    "Evolution isn't just for living organisms. Scientists at the Carnegie
    Institution have found that the mineral kingdom co-evolved with life, and
    that up to two thirds of the more than 4,000 known types of minerals on
    Earth can be directly or indirectly linked to biological activity. The
    finding, published in American Mineralogist, could aid scientists in the
    search for life on other planets.

    Robert Hazen and Dominic Papineau of the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical
    Laboratory, with six colleagues, reviewed the physical, chemical, and
    biological processes that gradually transformed about a dozen different
    primordial minerals in ancient interstellar dust grains to the thousands of
    mineral species on the present-day Earth. (Unlike biological species, each
    mineral species is defined by its characteristic chemical makeup and crystal
    structure.)

    "It's a different way of looking at minerals from more traditional
    approaches," says Hazen. "Mineral evolution is obviously different from
    Darwinian evolution-minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living
    organisms. But we found both the variety and relative abundances of minerals
    have changed dramatically over more than 4.5 billion years of Earth's
    history."

    All the chemical elements were present from the start in the Solar Systems'
    primordial dust, but they formed comparatively few minerals. Only after
    large bodies such as the Sun and planets congealed did there exist the
    extremes of temperature and pressure required to forge a large diversity of
    mineral species. Many elements were also too dispersed in the original dust
    clouds to be able to solidify into mineral crystals.

    As the Solar System took shape through "gravitational clumping" of small,
    undifferentiated bodies-fragments of which are found today in the form of
    meteorites-about 60 different minerals made their appearance. Larger,
    planet-sized bodies, especially those with volcanic activity and bearing
    significant amounts of water, could have given rise to several hundred new
    mineral species. Mars and Venus, which Hazen and coworkers estimate to have
    at least 500 different mineral species in their surface rocks, appear to
    have reached this stage in their mineral evolution.

    However, only on Earth-at least in our Solar System-did mineral evolution
    progress to the next stages. A key factor was the churning of the planet's
    interior by plate tectonics, the process that drives the slow shifting
    continents and ocean basins over geological time. Unique to Earth, plate
    tectonics created new kinds of physical and chemical environments where
    minerals could form, and thereby boosted mineral diversity to more than a
    thousand types.

    What ultimately had the biggest impact on mineral evolution, however, was
    the origin of life, approximately 4 billion years ago. "Of the approximately
    4,300 known mineral species on Earth, perhaps two thirds of them are
    biologically mediated," says Hazen. "This is principally a consequence of
    our oxygen-rich atmosphere, which is a product of photosynthesis by
    microscopic algae." Many important minerals are oxidized weathering
    products, including ores of iron, copper and many other metals.

    Microorganisms and plants also accelerated the production of diverse clay
    minerals. In the oceans, the evolution of organisms with shells and
    mineralized skeletons generated thick layered deposits of minerals such as
    calcite, which would be rare on a lifeless planet.

    "For at least 2.5 billion years, and possibly since the emergence of life,
    Earth's mineralogy has evolved in parallel with biology," says Hazen. "One
    implication of this finding is that remote observations of the mineralogy of
    other moons and planets may provide crucial evidence for biological
    influences beyond Earth."

    Citation: Robert M. Hazen, Dominic Papineau, Wouter Bleeker, Robert T.
    Downs, John M. Ferry, Timothy J. McCoy, Dimitri Sverjensky and Hexiong Yang
    (2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist.

    Provided by Carnegie Institution"
    ----------------------------------------------------
    PhysOrg.com
    November 13, 2008
    regs
    suresh
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Exactly. The authors say - in your own quotation - " "Mineral evolution is obviously different from Darwinian evolution-minerals don't mutate, reproduce or compete like living organisms."

    Now will you take your infantile nonsense and go play with the traffic.

    Moderator: What the **** does it take to bring some order to this forum. It is a disgrace that this nonsense - amsuing as it may be - is permitted to remain. Are you brain dead, or what. Take some ****ing action before the members do.
     
  8. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    than how earth formed according to latest theory ?
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    You have been given multiple references for this in the past. But I suggest you go to this online book:

    http://geowords.com/tocnetscape.htm

    Read the whole thing. Post nothing in the meantime. Then report back. Make any posts before then and I shall do all that I can to get you banned. If that doesn't work I shall track you down and let the air out of your bicycle tires.
     
  10. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    forgive me writing you again without your permission.
    pls read the attached docs very serious and interesting.
    2. pls advise me how different different layers and different different pockets of minerals arise in one globe according to latest theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=1&view=att&th=12041e5da1f36cf0&attid=0.1&disp=attd&zw
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    You need to put that item into a format that I can read. It is not a file type I use or recognise.
     
  12. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    our planet earth has bark like tree. continents are bark of earth.
    2. new bark is forming between center of continents in deep oceans.that is why rocks of new forming bark under oceans are much younger than rocks on continents.
     
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Stop it. Just stop it. You are repeating infantile nonsense. Apply for a brain transplant.
     
  14. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    all living thing or having biological growth produces different differrent type of oil. same our planet earth is producing crude oil.
     
  15. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Mod!
    Please: kill him or kill me, but do it soon...
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's outrageous that this has been allowed to go on and on for so long..
     
  17. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    i read this post. this man has same idea
    Dear All at the Expanding Earth Group,





    The following is an extract from my new website, which is far from
    complete but should be fully live by end of June (It is not just a
    website, it is an online school and interactive community for highly
    talented people, geniuses, who genuinely do wish to help make our
    world a better place)

    The website is: www.genius-for-hire.com (please bear with me as I
    finish designing and constructing it) and the mini-article I am
    posting on the site is regarding the Expanding Earth Hypothesis is as
    follows:

    "Is planet Earth expanding and GROWING?

    And, if GROWTH is happening, is this happening because the planet is
    in fact Alive?

    Hi! I want to make it very clear that this particular section has been
    inserted by me [Ray Murray] personally, because the views I express
    here may not be shared by every member of The Genius Collaborative ~
    they may indeed have completely different views, and that?s OK.

    However, I have posted these highly provocative videos here, which
    refer to a modern variation of the Expanding Earth Theory that was
    proposed by Charles Darwin as far back as 1834 - 1835. Darwin later
    dismissed the theory, but it was not completely dismissed by others,
    and variations of it have been ?in fashion? or ?out of fashion? ever
    since Darwin. (See Wikipedia for history of proponents of slightly
    different Expanding Earth Theories.)

    Now a new Expanding Earth Theory has recently been proposed by Neal
    Adams. His theory states that the Universe as a whole, and planets
    specifically, behave in ways that do not fit the generally accepted
    theories of Orthodox Science. (See Neal Adams own website for summary
    of this HIGHLY controversial proposal)

    As Neal states about his Expanding Earth Theory:

    ? First... It?s important to understand that this is the most profound
    disagreement in all of science in a century and a half... And, even
    so, it is the tip of the iceberg, the ramifications of this
    disagreement will change everything we know in science, top to bottom?

    Now, please note that I am not in a position to confirm or otherwise
    the accuracy of any of Neal Adams? statements - so I am not saying
    categorically that he is correct when he claims that The Earth and
    other planets in our Solar System (see videos) are GROWING.

    What I am saying is this:

    The proposal by Neal Adams and others before him, that The Earth and
    other planets are in fact GROWING is not so ludicrous as orthodox
    science would have us believe.

    However, if I were a betting man, and if I had to bet between Adams
    and Orthodox Science on whose arguments or theories were closest to
    the truth, then I would put my money on Neal Adams.

    My own work is based on the fact that I am the discoverer of The Law
    of Creation, which I first began to comprehend back in 1987.

    This is fully explained in my e-book ?Letter To The Leader?, which you
    can download from this site or from Scribd.com, where it is published.

    Briefly, you will see that The Law Of Creation (The LOC) essentially
    states that the entire Universe and many of the ?characters? that make
    up the Universe, such as our own Planet Earth, are in fact Alive.

    Now, that may sound preposterous to you and many other visitors to
    this section. It certainly sounds ludicrous to most orthodox scientists.

    Unfortunately for orthodox science, however, what I say in my book is
    absolutely correct and The Law Of Creation holds true.

    It is pretty easy to test it and confirm this for yourself.

    As Neal Adams indicated in relation to his own work, it is also true
    that the likely impact of my work and The Law Of Creation on the world
    of orthodox science will by enormous.

    In short, we are each independently stating that:

    ?The whole world of science has to re-examine the very foundations
    upon which modern science is based.?

    Like Neal Adams? theory about The Expanding Earth, you may well find
    that my work on The LOC is HUGELY controversial. (For some people,
    however, it is merely common sense).

    Understandably though the first reaction of Orthodox Science to the
    kinds of different, but potentially related hypotheses that Neal Adams
    and I are proposing, is likely to be, ?Where?s the proof??

    And that is a perfectly proper question, the answer to which is:

    ?The proof is right on our doorstep and all around us. The whole of
    Nature is the proof. We are part of the proof, and so is this whole
    planet.?

    If you take the time to read the entry in Wikipedia on the Expanding
    Earth Theories, you will see that:

    ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the
    lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase
    and on the inability to find an actual increase of earth's radius by
    modern measurements. This issue, along with the evidence for the
    process of subduction, caused the scientific community to dismiss the
    theory of an expanding Earth.?

    Subduction may be defined as:

    ?A geologic process in which one edge of one crustal plate is forced
    below the edge of another?

    It is important to note that the arguments against any Expanding Earth
    theory, and especially the arguments against the theory currently
    being offered by Neal Adams, are all coming from roughly the same,
    ?Level of Thinking?.

    And the reason that that is important to note is because, as Einstein
    famously stated:

    ?We can't solve problems by using the same level of thinking we used
    when we created them.?

    For example, I am categorically stating that God exists and one of the
    ETERNAL and INFINITE ?side-effects? of this is LIFE. Thus the Earth is
    a Living Entity and indeed the entire Universe is a Living Entity.

    I am not alone in making this assertion, of course, but anyone who
    proposes this is usually ridiculed by the orthodox scientific
    establishment ~ because the idea that God and LIFE may actively be
    involved in ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is just not ACCEPTED by the world of
    orthodox science.

    And the points to note here are these:

    1] If God does exist, as I claim is the case, and...

    2] If LIFE is a natural and UNIVERSAL consequence of that, as I also
    claim is the case, and...

    3] If LIFE is thereby infinitely and eternally OMNIPRESENT throughout
    the universe...(including in Stars / Planets etc)

    Then there is nothing at all strange about Neal Adams? proposal that
    the EARTH is GROWING, and that the other planets in our Solar System
    have also GROWN to reach their current size ~ and it is likely that
    all such planets (including the Earth) may still be GROWING.

    Living things GROW, until they reach their OPTIMUM SIZE.

    There is nothing unusual in that.

    But the level of thinking needed to grasp this concept, as Einstein
    indicated, is a higher level of thinking than the established level of
    thinking being generally practiced by the orthodox scientific
    community regarding how Life, The Universe and Everything actually work.

    You see, the normal arguments that fiercely oppose Neal Adams?
    Expanding Earth hypothesis, are generally based in a detailed
    understanding of only:

    Geologic and Physical processes (God and LIFE are not involved in
    these processes, so far as orthodox science is concerned)

    They do not see this as a Spiritual AND Biological AND a Physical AND
    Geological thing, where The Godflow and LIFE are just as involved in
    cosmic and planetary events as any Physical or Geologic process.

    This myopic stance is firmly held, mainly because the view of orthodox
    science is that the Universe is NOT alive, and LIFE is a rare event,
    rather than being an OMNIPRESENT and extremely COMMON thing.

    So this whole thing becomes a disagreement or confrontation, as I see
    it, between:

    Myopic Orthodox Science and ?Level 2 Thinking? *

    versus

    Visionary Omni-Science and ?Level 3 Thinking?*

    (*These terms are fully explained in my book, which you can obtain for
    free from my website - www.genius-for-hire.com - or directly from
    Scribd.com by going to:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/8357130/Letter-to-the-Leader )

    If you do read Letter To The Leader, you will see that I provide a
    complete and fairly easy to understand explanation of how The Law Of
    Creation works, and how this is employed by every single part of The
    Whole of Life and Nature, ~ holistically, uniquely and universally,
    equally ~ and in an infinite variety of ways ~ in order to enable ALL
    natural living systems in the Universe to function as a whole, in
    UNISON, and in ways which are designed to NATURALLY SUSTAIN LIFE ~
    INFINITELY and ETERNALLY.

    (The Law Of Creation thus explains the extremely simple ways in which
    The Infinite enjoys INFINITELY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ~ and because
    this is about Sustainable Development, this whole field of study is
    just as relevant to the world of business and ethics as it is to
    cosmology, or biology and physics or any other ?ology? and ?ics? you
    can think of)

    Now looking again at the objections of the orthodox scientific
    community to Neal Adams? version of the Expanding Earth Theory,
    Wikipedia points out::

    ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the
    lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase
    ....?

    OK - try this. If indeed it can be proven that the Earth has in fact
    GROWN to reach it?s current size ~ if Neal Adams turns out to be
    essentially correct in his claims ~ then the PROCESS that makes that
    possible will prove itself to be, quite simply, LIFE.

    (And, in turn, the ?process? or ?potential? which makes LIFE possible
    is God ~ this isn?t rocket-science, nor is it any kind of ?religious
    thing?. This is just the way everything works.)

    Now, having said all the above, after proper investigation by
    genuinely open-minded investigators, it may indeed turn out to be the
    case that Neal Adams is wrong. (But I wouldn?t bet on it). So it may
    indeed prove to be the case that in fact the Earth did NOT grow and is
    NOT growing.

    However, please note that such a conclusion would not alter one iota
    the accuracy or relevance of The Law Of Creation.

    My findings regarding The Law Of Creation are not at all dependent on
    Neal Adams being correct, though if he is correct, then his work would
    tend to corroborate my own.

    (Whilst on the other hand my work would explain not only HOW the Earth
    is able to grow, but also WHY this is a very normal thing for any
    LIVING BODY in the Cosmos to do)

    So...

    If Mr Adams? claims are proven to be completely or even generally
    accurate, then the simple reason WHY the Earth would be able to grow
    is because LIFE IS OMNIPRESENT throughout the Universe, and as a
    result of that, certain specific entities (like trees, like you and
    like me) are able to comply with The Law Of Creation and thus
    experience and tangibly demonstrate BEING ALIVE.

    The Earth, I submit, is one of those entities. It is a LIVING THING
    and just like all other living things that I am aware of, it stands to
    reason that any LIVING PLANET might indeed be able to GROW as it ages.

    As referred to in the video, this may produce a DOUBLING PERIOD,
    implying that such growth is exponential, but please note we are not
    talking here merely about EXPONENTIAL TANGIBLE GROWTH per se, we are
    talking about BIOLOGICAL GROWTH.

    This starts off generally as a relatively exponential thing, like a
    cell turning into a foetus, a foetus turning into a baby, a baby
    turning into a young child, and a young child turning in to an adult,
    but when the adult stage is reached, the ?getting bigger,
    exponentially? stops happening because the LIVING BEING has reached
    its OPTIMUM SIZE.

    So if a LIVING PLANET is able to grow, then it would only grow until
    it reaches an optimum size, just like every other LIVING GROWING
    THING. Is that such a strange idea to ACCEPT?

    Please note that the comment in Wikipedia did NOT state:

    ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the
    lack of a process by which the Earth's radius could increase...?

    The entry in Wikipedia states:

    ?The primary objections to an expanding Earth have centered around the
    lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase

    See the difference?

    The idea is not dismissed because there is no PROCESS which could
    cause the Earth to GROW - the idea is dismissed because the orthodox
    scientific community just don?t ACCEPT any of the THEORIES so far
    proposed which attempt to explain such a phenomenon.

    Yet there is a very ACCEPTABLE PROCESS that would explain this
    phenomenon with the greatest of ease, if indeed the phenomenon is a
    real phenomenon.

    And that ACCEPTABLE PROCESS, as already stated, is:

    LIFE ~ LIFE enables things to grow. Simple.

    You know, orthodox science does not think it at all strange that tiny
    little things called phytoplankton are able to photosynthesise, and
    directly transform the ENERGY of the Sun into ?food?, which enables
    those phytoplankton to GROW.

    The Earth as a whole (Living Entity) is bombarded by HUMUNGOUS amounts
    of ENERGY from the Sun every moment of the day and night.

    Is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to consider the
    possibility that the Earth itself may also be able to directly
    transform the ENERGY of the Sun into ?food?.

    How does it do that?

    By using The Law Of Creation in some appropriate way ~ though I won?t
    even begin to try to describe here HOW this amazing LIVING PLANET goes
    about specifically employing The Law Of Creation to transform Sunlight
    into Energy.

    (I submit that it will prove to be a slight variation on the way that
    trillions of micro-organisms and green plants do that very thing, and
    a variation on how other micro-organisms around volcanic spouts at the
    bottom of the sea transform heat directly in to ?food?)

    My point is that micro-organisms, phytoplankton and common or garden
    plants can directly transform ENERGY into FOOD, and they do so
    NATURALLY, and EASILY.

    These organisms can do this because they have LIFE, and because LIFE
    inherently knows how to employ The Law Of Creation. It is not just
    because they are green.

    It is because they are ALIVE.

    So perhaps the Sun is all The Earth needs,
    if indeed The Earth feeds.

    Please note that so far as I am aware Neal Adams is NOT claiming that
    the Earth is ALIVE. I am making that claim.

    And to be honest, to fully grasp what I am talking about here, you?ll
    just have to read my book ?Letter To The Leader?."

    Please also note the work of Dr Elisabet Sahtouris (Author of
    EarthDance) and Duane Elgin (Author of The Living Universe) as well as
    the work of Dean Radin on The Global Consciousness Project (Author of
    The Conscious Universe and Entangled Minds)

    You will find links to these people and their work on my website in
    the next few days.

    All the best - hope this different viewpoint proves to be relevant!

    Ray Murray
     
  18. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    This guy is even better than you: he not only agrees with you but he's got his own, additional crackpot ideas.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Just shut it, ok ?
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I exchanged arguments with Adams, whom he quotes liberally, on another forum. Adams is better known as one of the primary artists for Batman. Form your own conclusions.
     
  21. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    some stars eats small planets and got energy same big fish eat small fish. have u read this
     
  22. jsispat SURESH BANSAL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    209
    do you have still any understanding with me that earth has biological growth only or still sleeping.
     
  23. EAdam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8
    Give the guy a break. I, too, think the Earth is a living thing.
    I have been working on this for a long time and have gathered a lot of evidence.

    BTW, Leonardo da Vinci was convinced the Earth was a living thing and he was a genius.
     

Share This Page