User whom started this thread (Screen Name/User ID):
Teru Wong (Teru)
Date of posting:
14 November 2009
Link(URL): (#4)

I see your arrogance. We need every single man to pay attention to the importance that this planet is a biological entity. Else, we are coming to an end silently

You think my loud-ed-ness is unnecessary. SO what are you studying for? OR what have you studied for

I am warning my kinds: The Earth may come into an end all out of a sudden (because of the supplies of food and drinking water). Technology is not always the solution

Please be serious to my publications. This is not a homework.

I am working on it for free, for the future of humankind, for the God (a Conscious Earth).

A man without manner. A BARBARIAN without clothes

"The presence of water is not the only reason account for the presence of lives on the Earth. So what make the Earth different?"

Shortsightedness of men. Glory of an historical figure.
Comparisons make us different

As you stated above, the Earth has an atmosphere and a liquid ocean.
What are the causes for their presences? In another word, what make the Earth different?
Presence of water is not the case.
A first cell cannot make the Earth a bleeding ground.
Atmosphere cannot be found on our only natural satellite - Moon.
Therefore, orbits & distances from the sun cannot be

The Earth MUST be a biological entity.
"Lives in different levels" is an universal theory that can fully illustrated the system of our universe.

It is nothing personal. Please stay back to this hypothesis

The Earth is a "bleeding" ground by your nonsense.
"Blink" of extinction like a "big bang" of a group of young scientists

Reputation from the God (all G-ds is one)

I am thinking about your lives. You are thinking about our death.
I feel sorry for you.

Thank God we have New York Times here. A few words below

First of all, deserts recieved almost no participations at all. Search for the definition yourself

Quote, "Today, the success in growing new trees suggests that the harm to much of the Sahel may not have been permanent, but a temporary loss of fertility. The evidence, scientists say, demonstrates how relatively small changes in human behavior can transform the regional ecology, restoring its biodiversity and productivity.

Lydra Polygreen, Trees and crops reclaim desert in Niger - Africa & Middle East - International Herald Tribune, 11 Feburary 2007, available at

Note that the term "permanent" in this article may give you a clue what I am talking about

Look at each news article carefully. Journalists do not specialized in a related field (esp. ecology). Sometimes, not paying attention to details is fatal

Deserts can be cold. See Antarctica

Second, you mentioned "organic molecule". What are living tissues consist of?
Don't break a cell down and ask, "IS IT STILL ALIVE?"

Sorry for returning late

Quote Mee_n_Mac, “So are you claiming that there wasn't desert in the Sahel that wasn't turned back into growing crop land ? I suggest you reread the article.

Desertification cannot be reverted. Journalists often fail to pay attention to the details. Those recovered land can only be classified as “dryland”. A-Shame

Quote Mee_n_Mac, “Why not ask. It's a good way to illustrate differences between what's alive and what's not. I'm alive. I'd call my liver alive (barely). I'd call the cells that make it up alive. I wouldn't call the carbon based molecules those cells are composed off alive. You seem to want to redefine the word "alive" to suit your purposes. You claim the Earth is alive and seem to implore us to look at the larger picture (vs what the Earth is composed of). OK, what properties of "alive" does the Earth possess ? What one's doesn't it. Asking my question is a way to bring these properties to the forefront.

Only living thing can create a CELL by cell division. A first cell is required. Definition of “alive” is a kind of mindless philosophy. Science can do

Quote et_earth, “I think your viewpoint is based on the Gaia philosophy.

My scientific hypothesis “Lives in different levels” is completely different from Gaia. The Earth as a living entity is a logical direction of science. It has fully-illustrated the origin and the system of our universe. It based on a fact that the Earth is a biological entity.

Quote mabus, “To start off with, a lot of things make the earth different from the moon. You can start with the larger iron core at it's center. The moon has none, or has a small one. The rotating core at the center of the earth causes magnetic currents which protect the earth's atmosphere from solar radiation, the very type of radiation which would strip away any early atmosphere or prevent any atmosphere from forming on the moon, which does not have this sort of magnetic shield."

First, presence of water cannot be the only factor. Second, the first cell did not come from the outer space even you have both atmosphere and water on the Earth. Third, any belief in supernatural creation is unscientific. The only logical reason be the Earth herself is a living thing

A simple scientific hypothesis can be significant because nobody ever think in this direction.
Not every universal theory is pseudoscience.
Reputation based on the nonsense of the people at the time being.

History may never tell because both over-consumption & over-population are murdering our future generations.

After all, science can do

A significant discovery does not belong to any individual. Technological advancement is necessary.
It takes time, efforts from all scientists. At most, a thinker gives them a new direction

Facts speak louder then words. Please take a look at the article below:

AFP 2008, New map suggests Mars was wet and humid, available at

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

Although it still remains controverial, efforts of the scientists will give us an answer

As I used to say, "Time will show. History will tell."
History tells because time is short.