Answer me this:

what if we put vibrators into every pool of still water on the whole world

HOLY SHIT
HUMANS ARE GAIA

you would waste a lot of resources making water ripple while the larva got a free massage. Flowing water is different than vibrating water.

>current year
>still not educated on gaia core

We dont actually know what is at the center of the earth.

It could be a ball of iron (lol), or it could be Gaia, aka mother nature.

If you're a square headed brainlet, you'll go with a ball of iron because of the images the textbooks show illegally (they have no proof)

if you have a high IQ and an open mind, you could maybe consider the possibility that Gaia does exist and resides at the center of earth, where she is able to create life through techtonics

>what are hyperboles

>Why do mosquitoes exist?
Because they fill an environmental niche.

What are they actually?

damn

gaia could very well explain why earth is the only known planet with advanced life

and it would show existence of higher life forms, essentially "gods"

beings who inhabit whole planets and direct their development from within

gaia core theory is more believable than 99% of science and alternative science explanations for earth, the supposed "iron spinning ball" and other stupid ideas by small human minds

Because they're apparently really good at reproducing.

Motherfuckers have been around for 80 million years. Drinking Dinosaur blood, man. Meteor impacts, massive climate and environmental changes, the little bastards keep on truckin'

Nah, its solid FeNi surrounded by molten Fe and Ni with trace elements. A crackerjack box compass will show you this.

or gaia has a magnetic field

Or the reptilians are using powerful electromagnets powered by the geothermal energy of the core to project mind control waves from their Jewish designed Illuminati mind control devises.

"gaia could very well explain why earth is the only known planet with advanced life"

Or, maybe the universe is enormous? We've discovered 3500 planets outside the solar system so far. There are fuckin' 10^24 stars out there, let alone planets.

Think about that ratio for a second.

what was the probability of abiogenesis again? 10^200?

Why would you use quotation marks instead of
>greentext?
Reddit much?

>implying anyone really has all the variables involved lined up to do an accurate measure of probability

what is the probability of existence of a deity, you fucking hack?

reddit uses meme arrow syntax, have you visited the internet lately

Well, I'm on it right now and nice job explaining how reddit works. You should go back.

I thought I was on /x/ for a second.

unknown, obviously. However, one could argue that it would be the inverse of the probability of intelligent life evolving from lifeless chemicals on a habitable planet without one

perhaps, if that probability was an exact value rather than a naively huge upper bound

which brings us back to the original point: your whole argument is worthless rhetoric

that's fair but either we exist with a form of creator or we exist without one, the only other option is that we do not exist

sorry for the insufficient explanation, i googled a wikihow for you, because i thoroughly enjoy explaining to morons that social websites i do not give a fuck about have influenced each other

a tautology is slightly less pointless than an unfalsifiable claim.

how is that a tautology, the only way the probability changes is if we assume the existence of the multiverse

>cells literally nothing but chemistry

>what is probability of chemistry

worthless.

>either we exist with a form of creator or we exist without one
for the sake of simplicity let existence be a given, let P = there is a creator, not P = there is not a creator,
>either P or not P
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

>if I throw all these puzzle pieces in the same general direction then they will all fall into place perfectly
>it's literally nothing but physics

Dat moment when you can't tell if bait or really stupid.
9/10 bait(stupidity, as applicable)

>atoms are nonreactive and inert much like cardboard puzzle pieces

The chance of the life surviving AFTER abiogenesis is probably much lower. Life probably spawns all the time and just dies immediately.

okay yeah, what I said was basically law of thought, but that kindof supports the assertion of the probability of creationism being a 'naively huge upper bound', don't you think?

>the natural tendency of atoms is to assemble as a functioning, self-repairing, self-nourishing, reproducing system

we were originally discussing the probability of abiogensis which you stated was the inverse of the probability of creationism, and i emphasized that that is the inverse of a probability we do not know, not the inverse of the upper bound.

you then backpedaled to the claim that well at least we can agree either creationism or not creationism, which I've been attempting to explain is useless because it is literally axiomatic

To worship God, their creator.

i was going to play the quote game but then i kek'd too hard

please define a "functioning" biological system

are you "functioning" because you participate in creationism arguments on 4chin? is that your function? are you performing it well?

the tendency of any randomly generated system is to eventually do something impressive

get at me

oh ok there was a miscommunication, I thought you were trying to say that creationism somehow wasn't the inverse probability of non-creationism

Just to clarify in case there was misunderstanding, my statement was that the probability of creationism would be the inverse of the probability of abiogenesis and macroevolution functioning perfectly on a world that happens to be the right temperature and have lots of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc

of course this probability would be completely dispelled by either an infinite number of habitable planets or an infinite number of parallel universes, which are both equally unfalsifiable claims

>>Because they fill an environmental niche.
Your mother exists because I fill her every night

CONJECTURE:
The universe assembles matter in such a way that the matter in the universe ultimately constructs ever-more-accurate models of the universe.

Predictions about the future of the environment given some (growing) subset of the state of the environment.

It is trivial to see that natural selection was a subset to this behavior until a sapient species arose.

>please define a "functioning" biological system
ok how about "find food, escape death as long as possible, and make copies of yourself"

depends how many times the trial is run

Considering two of those are synonyms of the other terms you used, all you've given me is "escape death as long as possible" which is vague as hell and "self-repairing" contributes to in one way already.

New poster, synonymous means they mean the same thing. "Finding food" is an implication of "escape death" assuming you need food and "make copies" doesn't stave off death, it just makes sure your genes survive.

ok how about "live long enough to reproduce", is that good enough? Vagueness is irrelevant because the original argument is over the probability of abiogenesis

Except he already said "self-nourishing". I'm just playing with him while he lists off words to sound smart. All creationists can do is alternate between tautologies and unfalsifiable arguments while wondering why others aren't convinced.

I bet you thought you'd get away with that ridiculous ad hominem driven statement, you smug, fedora wielding autist

Filipino is fucking Asian nigger

>ad hominem
I was attacking the stupidity of the words he chose in his mindless rhetorical argument. Did you look that term up in the dictionary before copying and pasting it?

exactly, without a Gaia to nurture this life, it will perish probably immediately

how will a cell survive without an environment rich in gas and minerals, unless there exists a Gaia to provide it?

its the reason why there is no life on asteroids and small moons, my hypothesis is that the Gaia beings are of a certain size, so in order to impregnate the celestial bodies, the bodies need to be a certain size

it explains why earth has life and the moon does not

and Gaia are surely rare due to their advanced life forms likely moving on to the next conciousness, while a select few remain here to herd the sheep (us).

without gaia we will never reach the awakening, but i fear we will kill our mother before we evolve beyond crude human emotions such as greed and want.

if only there was a way to contact her, and we could also ask her about the mosquitoes, but now that i think about it, maybe mosquitoes are Gaia's way of telling us we need to stop destroying the earth

i think once the Gaia impregnate a planet, they become entwined and connected, they lose their physical form and become the planet itself. so if earth dies so too will Gaia and there will be no one to guide us to the awakening so we can take on our true forms of emotion and energy at the edge of the universe where we will cross into the 4th dimension and possibly become Gaia ourselves as a new generation of guides for other sentient beings

kekklehaus

no, you were attacking the idea of my "stupidity" in general while cherry picking details, followed by a completely unrelated, generalized statement about creationists. You argue like a reddit atheist. I should've known better than to continue to responding to someone who things ridicule counts as an argument.

what happens if we go to Mars

Things eat them for survival. Everything in nature is essential, even if we hate it.

i think if there is a Gaia in Mars, it perished long ago.

I read that long ago Mars had just as much life and greenery as Earth did until it was struck by some asteroids which created a dust cloud that lasted millions of years.

I think that dust cloud maybe asphyxiated the Gaia because it could no longer draw its strength from the sun, and that is why today it is a desolate and barren hunk of rock.

But also you'd have to consider that there cant be a Gaia for every large rock in the sky, but maybe they like to stick together? Maybe earth Gaia and mars Gaia were friends and they decided to impregnate within communication distance?

But i'd have to imagine that such advanced virtually celestial lifeforms would be able to communicate directly through the ether via some kind of instantaneous link such as the 4D consciousness we all know as dreamstate, which they must be able to use at will.

as awakened beings themselves im sure it would be no issue to commune directly through thought and emotional energy, but i dont know if a Gaia could survive being struck by enough meteors that it cant breathe the sun anymore.

i would assume that they need some form of energy to survive once they impregnate the rock and fuse with it, becoming the planets guiding will

but its hard to say what really happened to mars, maybe it was never impregnated in the first place, i guess we will find out when we land there, and maybe we can reawaken the Gaia and reestablish its link with our own. although i mean it probably wouldnt be happy with how we have treated our Gaia, right i bet it would be pretty angry seeing that ours is now on life support with climate warming and the negative energy attributed by billions of sentient life forms whose sole purpose is materialistic greed and corruption and no care for the environment

if i was the mars Gaia i would probably leave the suns orbit and crash into the earth, to destroy humanity but save earth Gaia in the process

we /x/ now

it's hard to cherry pick when you give me two or three actual terms per response in a vague hand-waving argument. i didn't ignore a single thing you said. i responded to many in parallel, however.

my statements about creationists only came after watching you flounder. sorry for giving you a strawman to cling to as if it describes the entire argument.

keep telling yourself how mean i'm being to you, but all i did was dismiss your rhetoric as rhetoric. i didn't start responding to turn your viewpoint around, but to highlight the fallacies and meaningless statements. so i think i'm done if you're done whining and calling me a fedora-wearing atheist (i'm agnostic fwiw!).

I choose to believe you're trying to troll and not that you're a massive imbecile

THAT IS QUITE LITERALLY THE PLOT OF THE MOVIE "FINAL FANTASY SPIRITS WITHIN".

are you sure there aren't more species that feed on mosquitos? Isnt it just another insect that's eating by frogs, birds etc.?
and how would you eradicate it?

You throw around 'vague' like a buzzword. I originally stated that the probability of abiogenesis was incredibly low and you responded that it's the nature of chemicals to form life. Wouldn't you agree that that assertion was as much or more vague and rhetorical than my response regarding the general properties of a living thing?

Without them spreading disease and killing off other animals, things would get out of hand.

they have a large total biomass but afaik no animal relies on mosquitoes for it's primary source of food.

If you find a way to genocide mosquitoes, nobody is going to give a fuck about reprocussions.
Just kill these fuckers.

information transfer
they probably aid in evolution; in intraspecies mixing

in gene flow

>they are everywhere
What is Antarctica?

Mosquitoes occupy a specific niche which can easily be taken over by other midges, gnats, or flies if there was a vacuum created. You wipe out those cocksuckers and there's plenty of other dicks ready to take the limelight.

Take a fucking ecology class

Big part of mammalian DNA is viral and that DNA help in human evolution (the placenta is from viral DNA), Mosquitoes drive evolution (red queen)

What if, we created a giant organic blob out of HeLa cells, dropped it in Panama or where the most mosquitos come from (basically their source), and infected it with a virus designed to kill mosquitos. Then we made everyone stay inside their homes for a day, and wear mosquito repellent for a week.

Would it work?

Alternatively, we could design something a self-winding fly swatter with an area that is dipped in whatever pheremone or other released by bannanas or their digestion that mosquitos like.

>they serve no purpose other than to reproduce and die and annoy other forms of life
That's a pretty good definition of life.

Submit that shit to Merriam-Webster, they might take it!

Because they can.

Since every answer in this thread is by a 12 year old, I'll chime in my thoughts.

Mosquitoes don't have a "purpose" per say. But if you look at it this way, mosquitoes are perhaps nature's way of keeping other species' population in check.