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.
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.
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.
I like your argument too.
I have one, but scientifically, it is not a strong one (may have some exceptions). I am still working on it. I am not a biologist, and I have little time to study this. It would take a while.
In the absence of proof, there's only the absence.
Join Date: 27th November 2008
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,217
Blessings: 29,499
Reps: 2,160,465,330,633 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by juvenissun
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?
This makes no sense. We eat cows, goats, fish. We slaughter cows by the herd-full to put hamburger on the table, and leather in the boots. We feed dead cow back to the cows. Are these animals not living either? We kill insects by the billions, entire hives of bees and ants are slaughtered every minute world-wide. In south america people eat insects (They're actually yummy, decent source of quality protein). Are insects not alive either?
The fact is you can't define life by your fuzzy feelings and hope it has any scientific merit, plants meet the standard definition of what life is, and your attempt to redefine the term life does nothing more than create confusion in a conversation for a few moments before your argument is tossed for it's fringe state.
Abiogenesis and Evolution make predictions as to roughly what kind of environment will predict life. Namely we're looking for planets with a certain chemical composition, a certain size, and a certain distance from the parent star. This is why there's a rush to develop techniques to detect earth-sized planets within the habitable zone of worlds, and by distribution theory there should be a lot of em out there.
What predictions does ID make about where to look for life elsewhere in our galaxy? How can you extrapolate from it information that could assist in this search?
your fault here is thinking that ID is about the origin of life. it's not, and doesn't try to be. ID is simply about evidence for design in nature.
__________________ Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is praise worthy--think of these things.
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.
Yes we did. I pointed out something nobody gave a satisfactory answer. So the thread was buried. The one (metabolism) many of you did answer (with rare examples) is still not convincing to me. I said plant only takes in nutrients, but does not expel wastes. That is not metabolism.
Yes we did. I pointed out something nobody gave a satisfactory answer. So the thread was buried. The one (metabolism) many of you did answer (with rare examples) is still not convincing to me. I said plant only takes in nutrients, but does not expel wastes. That is not metabolism.
Regarding mass murder and serial killing etc, nobody cares if you spray ants and termites. Nobody cares if you crack open chicken eggs! You know perfectly well that the reason that (we in western societies anyway) dont want you to torture animals is that they are have feelings that we can identify with.
If a plant does not expel waste, by the way, they what is the oxygen that they expel? Some plants excrete salt, too.
Am I correct that the only reason you dont want to accept that plants are alive has to do with your need to avoid accepting that there would ahve been death in the "garden of eden"?
But plants DO expel waste. For instance, oxygen. The stomata are structures in plants that almost entire deal with gas exchange, taking in gasses and expelling waste gasses. And some plants deal with waste by moving it to their leaves and shedding it. Plants must excrete waste somehow, you can't have them take it in and in and in and nothing out without being obscenely huge to store it all.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
Linear Mode
