16 Nov '15 21:39>
Originally posted by sonshipI see.
I lack a belief in Jym.
The idea of someone having a father-in-law called Jym is too far-fetched for you.
You cynic!
Originally posted by vistesdreally?
No.
Originally posted by karoly aczelthe gaia theory, if true would be largely unknown. like me might get to know 0.0001% of it's knowledge.
I disagree. I believe the "Earth" to be a conscious entity, in accordance with aspects of the gaia theory
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow would I judge? Well that's tough. I would discuss with experts and what not.
Any God worth being called 'God' would be able to stop all natural disasters that harm people. I don't know about Gaia and its capabilities but how would you judge? How would you know what the number of bushfire and storms would be given an entirely natural world as compared to one with Gaia?
Originally posted by googlefudgeI thought that was one of it's main posits?
First, the 'Gaia theory' does not posit that the Earth is concious.
Second, if it did, it would be wrong to do so.
The Earth is a giant ball of rock and iron, with a tiny thin film of interestingly arranged
carbon, water, and nitrogen on the surface.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll admit you on the right track in regards to my religion, perhaps even close.
In addition, in a scientific context, it would be termed 'Gaia hypothesis'. But I believe Karoly has it as his religion in which case he would do well to call it Gaia religion.
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh, I would have though it was obvious. Rather childish, but thought provoking for some.
I have no idea what the spirit of the question is. so no.
Originally posted by karoly aczelShoes have soles. Rocks have homogeneous solids.
...yeah , i'm one of those nuts that thinks rocks,n'such "have souls" . I agreed with many new age thoughts but disagree with probably more than I agree with.
thanks for the thumbs down thumbsuckers![/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt was open ended, it didn't have to mean the same thing to you as the next guy to really
Yes, mostly about different meanings of 'world'.
Originally posted by KellyJayIn other words your thread is meaningless.
It was open ended, it didn't have to mean the same thing to you as the next guy to really
answer it. Yet, it was almost as if there was some requirement for all of us to have the
same meaning. Not sure why unless we just need to be able to say this answer is wrong
and the other one is right, when there really isn't a wrong or right as it was asked. It ca ...[text shortened]...
I was clear I wasn't putting a set meaning the question to avoid limiting answers.
question.