• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Are planets living organisms?

*Misreads as "plants living orgasams"* XD

I dont think planets are alive.
 
Last edited:
If you created this topic, you probably have some sort of argument to support the idea.

If so, do tell us.
 
Well, lets check the characteristics of life.

Adaptation - The Earth changes through continental drift and the like, but it's not to improve survival. It just happens.
Reproduction - Ohoho, no.
Growth - Nope. Things on it grow, but it doesn't grow itself.
Organised Structure - Yeah, I'd say so.
Energy - This one I not sure of. Does the Earth create/slash obtain it's own energy? Would the magnetetic-feild-creating spinning of it count?
Stimulus-Responce - Ppptbth. Not that I can see.
Developement - Sorta. The Earth has gone through a lot of changes, so that kinda counts.

You need all of the characteristics of life to be considered living.
Correct me on any of these if I'm wrong, but either way the Earth itself isn't alive.
 
Metallica Fanboy said:
If you created this topic, you probably have some sort of argument to support the idea.

If so, do tell us.
Click to expand...
Someone's been playing too much FFVII, methinks.

Planets aren't organisms. The Earth is just like any other planet in the galaxy, except it has the right conditions for what we recognise as life.

It's different if you're referring to the Earth as an organism for the sake of metaphor, though.
 
Notoriously Unknown said:
Well, lets check the characteristics of life.

Adaptation - The Earth changes through continental drift and the like, but it's not to improve survival. It just happens.
Reproduction - Ohoho, no.
Growth - Nope. Things on it grow, but it doesn't grow itself.
Organised Structure - Yeah, I'd say so.
Energy - This one I not sure of. Does the Earth create/slash obtain it's own energy? Would the magnetetic-feild-creating spinning of it count?
Stimulus-Responce - Ppptbth. Not that I can see.
Developement - Sorta. The Earth has gone through a lot of changes, so that kinda counts.

You need all of the characteristics of life to be considered living.
Correct me on any of these if I'm wrong, but either way the Earth itself isn't alive.
Click to expand...

you got them wrong. everyone gets them wrong. :( Response to stimuli, organisation, reproduction, adaptation, growth; those are fine. You missed homeostasis and metabolism, though. So, in order: no, no (this refers specifically to cells; if it isn't made of cells, it isn't alive), no, no, no, no, no. Look at that, the Earth isn't alive!

why are we even having this debate what the hell
 
opaltiger said:
you got them wrong. everyone gets them wrong. :(
Click to expand...
hey, back in year six I could've probably gotten them right. the seven characteristics of life were part of the syllabus for our Science SATS. 'course, they didn't teach us the proper words like "homeostasis", but still!
 
goldenquagsire said:
hey, back in year six I could've probably gotten them right. the seven characteristics of life were part of the syllabus for our Science SATS. 'course, they didn't teach us the proper words like "homeostasis", but still!
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Basic courses always tend to simplify and skip the last two.
 
opaltiger said:
I doubt it. Basic courses always tend to simplify and skip the last two.
Click to expand...
pretty sure we got a horribly simplified version of homeostasis and metabolism. I definitely remember there being seven taught, at least.

it figures that my class failed our SATS miserably. ^_^
 
goldenquagsire said:
pretty sure we got a horribly simplified version of homeostasis and metabolism. I definitely remember there being seven taught, at least.

it figures that my class failed our SATS miserably. ^_^
Click to expand...

Yeah, because they replace them with other things which are vaguely related but not the same. Digestion for metabolism, for example (I hate that one).
 
opaltiger said:
you got them wrong. everyone gets them wrong. :( Response to stimuli, organisation, reproduction, adaptation, growth; those are fine. You missed homeostasis and metabolism, though. So, in order: no, no (this refers specifically to cells; if it isn't made of cells, it isn't alive), no, no, no, no, no. Look at that, the Earth isn't alive!
Click to expand...

opaltiger said:
I doubt it. Basic courses always tend to simplify and skip the last two.
Click to expand...

I was repeating what my science teacher taught me. Seems she skipped those two, though they were mentioned.
Bah. I go to school to learn. Make it challanging and thorough.
And put back in spelling tests. They would do some people (me) a world of good. -.-;;;
 
I remember being taught the characteristics of life in Biology. I actually remember us going into metabolism a pretty good deal (having a whole lecture devoted to it, even; I don't remember any of the others getting that much attention) and him at least mentioning homeostasis (or calling it something else, like "maintaining balance in the cells" or something).

I can't imagine learning that stuff at age 11, though. I think back then we were still hooking little lightbulbs up to D batteries to see how cool and fun science is! And not having much of anything explained beyond "this is a circuit".
 
Spaekle Oddberry said:
I can't imagine learning that stuff at age 11, though. I think back then we were still hooking little lightbulbs up to D batteries to see how cool and fun science is! And not having much of anything explained beyond "this is a circuit".
Click to expand...

Well I'm in 7th grade so um...
And science is my favorite subject so um...
 
And put back in spelling tests. They would do some people (me) a world of good. -.-;;;
Click to expand...
Moreso than spelling, I could've used penmanship lessons in my primary school. What makes it worse is that seemingly every school in the country except mine did them. ):
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom