Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Let's not play word games here. The overwhelming majority of the population say plants are alive. Probably all scientists define plants as living organisms. This means your redefinition of the term 'life' is fringe status, and when scientists are looking for life on other planets, this includes plants- this is what's important.
Beyond that, I have no clue what purpose your statement serves in this thread.
You do not think properly. My reminder is exactly a comment to your OP.
That means, if we found plants in outer space (or in the solar system), big news. But that does not mean we found life. SETI will never succeed no matter how fast they can search. We will see.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by juvenissun
You do not think properly. My reminder is exactly a comment to your OP.
That means, if we found plants in outer space (or in the solar system), big news. But that does not mean we found life. SETI will never succeed no matter how fast they can search. We will see.
This makes utterly no sense. I'm not sure if I want to go poking this pig considering previous comments to your statement, but this does indeed sound like you're attempting to redefine the term 'life' to suit your preconceptions.
By standard definition, life must have homeostasis (regulates internal environment), organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
Plants meet all of these requirements. If you dispute that plants do not meet one or more of these criteria to be classified as life, please do explain. If you cannot dispute one or more of these requirements, then your argument is without merit.
-------------------------------
Now that I've poked the pig, let's deal with your statement. You are clearly redefining what the term life means in such a way that your definition is fringe status at best. This means that while finding an old growth oak on mars does not constitute finding life on mars to you, it does to almost every other human on this planet, ergo, since your argument is based on word games, your argument has no merit.
This makes utterly no sense. I'm not sure if I want to go poking this pig considering previous comments to your statement, but this does indeed sound like you're attempting to redefine the term 'life' to suit your preconceptions.
By standard definition, life must have homeostasis (regulates internal environment), organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
Plants meet all of these requirements. If you dispute that plants do not meet one or more of these criteria to be classified as life, please do explain. If you cannot dispute one or more of these requirements, then your argument is without merit.QUOTE///
Hespera sez... As I understand it, Juv cannot premit the concept that plants are alive, because to do so would allow for there to have been death in the "garden of eden".
As he is the man with the highest degree of education that it is possible for a human being to have, with the word of god on his side, he will not be moved off of that particular absurdity by any force of facts or reason.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by Hespera
rag sez
This makes utterly no sense. I'm not sure if I want to go poking this pig considering previous comments to your statement, but this does indeed sound like you're attempting to redefine the term 'life' to suit your preconceptions.
By standard definition, life must have homeostasis (regulates internal environment), organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
Plants meet all of these requirements. If you dispute that plants do not meet one or more of these criteria to be classified as life, please do explain. If you cannot dispute one or more of these requirements, then your argument is without merit.QUOTE///
Hespera sez... As I understand it, Juv cannot premit the concept that plants are alive, because to do so would allow for there to have been death in the "garden of eden".
As he is the man with the highest degree of education that it is possible for a human being to have, with the word of god on his side, he will not be moved off of that particular absurdity by any force of facts or reason.
I still want to see him try to argue that plants don't meet one of the 6 criteria for life. It should be fun.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by fisheress
It won't be, it will just be sad, very sad, to admit plants were alive would sink his ship.
I try to give people the initial benefit of the doubt and assume they have a valid argument. If it turns out his argument belongs in a hooka, then so be it, but atm I will work with the assumption that there's something worth discussing in this.
It is simply a reminder on the definition of life, which is essential to the OP.
a definition which you made up, and apparently you're using a different definition of life than everyone else. A plant is "alive" by any definition of alive i've ever heard of, maybe you could care to share your definition of "alive" which doesn't include plants.
not that it matters. "a rose by any other name...". Just defining something differently doesn't make it any different.
that's why i say, you're assertion that plants are not alive, is semantic nonsense. Your statement has no meaning whatsoever until you tell us what you mean by "alive" because you are obviously not using the common definition of "alive". You could start by telling us what a plant is lacking that makes it not "alive" by your criteria. Then you could tell us what relevance that has to this thread.
Didn't we have a big discussion on plants a few months ago? Where I mentioned plant metabolism and whatnot? The only differences between a plant cell and an animal cell are that plants have a vacuole, chloroplasts, and a cell wall. Other than that everything is the same. You might as well be saying that animals aren't alive either.
__________________ Slug's 1st Law of YECism- Genesis 1-9 must be interpreted literally. Slug's 2nd Law of YECism- Any other verses can be interpreted liberally to support the 1st Law. Slug's 3rd Law of YECism- Make up any extra-Biblical claim, no matter how wild, to wave-away evidence in violation of the 1st Law.
"If God sent a wind from space, and blew waters off the surface, for example, the waters would go down. Just as if you take a cup full of water over a sink, and blow hard on it, a lot will go out of the cup. Elementary." -dad ^This statement nullifies his own argument by comparing a "present state" event to a "past state" event!
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,498
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Oh come on people, ID purports to be the best hypothesis explaining the origin of life and species. If evolution and abiogenesis can make these predictions, then ID has to be able to for it to be the superior hypothesis.
This makes utterly no sense. I'm not sure if I want to go poking this pig considering previous comments to your statement, but this does indeed sound like you're attempting to redefine the term 'life' to suit your preconceptions.
By standard definition, life must have homeostasis (regulates internal environment), organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction.
Plants meet all of these requirements. If you dispute that plants do not meet one or more of these criteria to be classified as life, please do explain. If you cannot dispute one or more of these requirements, then your argument is without merit.
-------------------------------
Now that I've poked the pig, let's deal with your statement. You are clearly redefining what the term life means in such a way that your definition is fringe status at best. This means that while finding an old growth oak on mars does not constitute finding life on mars to you, it does to almost every other human on this planet, ergo, since your argument is based on word games, your argument has no merit.
No. I am not playing word game.
Think, if you mistreated an animal, people will come to trouble you. But if you mistreat, or torture your plants, nobody cares. Why is there such a difference? Admitted it, even you think plant is life, you don't really treat it as one. Why? Because it is not a life.
I have many veggies grow in my garden right now. Everyday, I "killed" many of them and put them into my stomach. Are you going to accuse me of mass and serial murdering? Why not?
Linear Mode
