Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Skaloop]

No.

We can consume something which is not previously living.

Yes, of course we can. But can we survive on it?

 

[florida2]

Yup.

Only I prefer to call it "constructive criticism."

I've been [falsely] accused of that so many times, I'm almost starting to believe it, myself.

When I see someone appealing to Netiquette to make a point -- however valid that point is -- I usually consider it a desperation tactic.

Desperation? In what way? I was not actively participating in the debate itself so it could not be desperation to try and win an argument. All I was saying was to stay on topic. Once. That's all!

If I went around posting like that all the time, you'd have a fair point. However, I posted this once and you decide to come down on me like a ton of bricks.

In your case however, something told me to look up your post count, so I did.

I used to have a couple of guys with very low posts per day play Miss Netiquette with me, and it doesn't work.

I still don't see how it's relevant. Do you actually care about how many posts you have? I don't take any notice of how many posts anyone has, to be honest. If they've got a valid point, they've got a valid point.

So I noticed.

Deliberately misquoting me - why did you feel the need to resort to that?

You'll forgive me if I think it's fake ... I hope?

WHY would it be 'fake'? Why would I bother writing the post if my point wasn't real? I don't understand your thinking here.

Everything we think, do, or say "annoys" you guys.

I can't even post in the Numbers forums without "annoying" someone.

True, even the best of us can. However, I wasn't annoyed with the points he presented, it was just the fact that it was off-topic and I've observed justa do this on more than once occasion.

Well, as I told someone else here (can't remember who) ... if your fake concern is indeed real, then I submit you have a real problem with us here.

How is my concern 'fake'? I don't understand what you mean. If my concern was fake (ie. my concern was not real) why would I write the post?

The only problem I had was one post which was off-topic from a poster I have observed posting off-topic before. That's all!

 

[AV1611VET]

How is my concern 'fake'? I don't understand what you mean. If my concern was fake (ie. my concern was not real) why would I write the post?

You keep badgering me about my opinion, florida, and you're going to end up averaging 1 post per day.

 

[florida2]

You keep badgering me about my opinion, florida, and you're going to end up averaging 1 post per day.

Why are you obsessed about post counts? I see now you have a lot of posts but I fail to understand why you would judge what people say by it.

I'm very sorry if you feel I am badgering you. You wrote a post criticising me and I didn't really understand. When someone is criticising me for something I like to understand why. I still don't understand your motivation, so I was just asking.

 

[AV1611VET]

I still don't understand your motivation, so I was just asking.

Florida, I'll try this one more time, since you're probably a scientist; meaning I feel sorry for you.

But here it is -- one ... more ... time.

When a person breaks radio silence to hold Netiquette over someone's head, it piques my interest.

So I usually ask their motivation.

If they say it's because they are irked, then I'll usually give them the benefit of a doubt and assume it is "fake indignation."

After all, if they are truly indignant about it, then I submit they have a problem with tolerance.

If indeed it is the real McCoy, then people like that scare me.

 

[bhsmte]

Florida, I'll try this one more time, since you're probably a scientist; meaning I feel sorry for you.

But here it is -- one ... more ... time.

When a person breaks radio silence to hold Netiquette over someone's head, it piques my interest.

So I usually ask their motivation.

If they say it's because they are irked, then I'll usually give them the benefit of a doubt and assume it is "fake indignation."

After all, if they are truly indignant about it, then I submit they have a problem with tolerance.

If indeed it is the real McCoy, then people like that scare me.

If that is the case, you scare way too easily AV.

I would think your faith would give you some protection from such fears.

 

[Dizredux]

Referring to the NASA working definition of life:

No wonder that stupid proposal did not pass.

My turn, I did not find that in the article. Could you show were this came from? Quotes would be good.

And you are the follower of that proposal.

As a working definition, I think it reasonable for what it was intended to do.

Dizredux

 

[florida2]

Florida, I'll try this one more time, since you're probably a scientist; meaning I feel sorry for you.

Why do you persist in trying to annoy and insult me? I'm trying to be nice and civil here

But here it is -- one ... more ... time.

When a person breaks radio silence to hold Netiquette over someone's head, it piques my interest.

So I usually ask their motivation.

He posted off-topic, as he has done elsewhere which is against the forum rules. I pulled him up in it once.

If they say it's because they are irked, then I'll usually give them the benefit of a doubt and assume it is "fake indignation."

After all, if they are truly indignant about it, then I submit they have a problem with tolerance.

If indeed it is the real McCoy, then people like that scare me.

Yes, I was irked he was posting off-topic as I have observed him do. I feel that it perfectly good motivation. The forum rules say to not post off-topic so it's not just my personal opinion.

I still don't understand this 'fake indignation'. Why would I have posted if it was fake? Surely I would only post if I was genuine?

Scare you? I ask one person in one thread about posting off-topic and that scares you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I do not see where does the Bible say that.

Not my problem you can't find it. Seeds are a stage for plants, even if you try to argue that it is the only time at which plants are alive, plants are still alive at some point.

 

[SkyWriting]

On another topic, when presented with clear evidence for evolution above the species level in plants, a creationist said this:So, I am curious, is this the opinion of most creationists? Do they really think that plants evolve and animals do not? And if plants were created the same way as animals why would they evolve while animals do not?

Animals do evolve in the same way that plants do.
Combine different parents and get different results
based on the parentage you choose. And part of
a theory that can be recreated can be confirmed
by favorable or hostile researchers.

Especially researchers hostile to a particular theory.
If you prove something "correct" you still have no
idea if the event occurred according to your fantasy.

But, when you disprove a theory, you have confirmed
that the theory does not produce the results that the
theory proclaims it should.

Anything that cannot be repeated is outside of
science to confirm. And falsify as well.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, of course we can. But can we survive on it?

Yes we can.
(this trick of argument is useless)

 

[Kylie]

No. But neither a snake.

Rubbish. Snakes are perfectly capable of altering their internal condition in response to an environmental change.

If a rock is heated to a higher temperature, it WILL change. So is human.

And that is not the rock altering itself, is it? It's the environment causing the change. It's simple flow of heat from one area to another. That is NOT what I was talking about. If you cool a rock, will it change it's internal condition to maintain a temperature? Life forms do this all the time, in response to temperature how much water there is, chemical balances for certain reactions. Rocks do NOT do this, therefore your point fails.

It is not the nature of the function, it is the capacity of the function. The criterion is the same.

And it doesn't happen in rocks.

 

[Kylie]

Rock can. If you put a rock under the sun for one day, it will not change.

Exactly. A rock will take no action.

A human, on the other hand, will. They will get sunburnt. They will start sweating to keep cool. Also sorts of changes will take place in order to maintain a constant internal condition. A rock doesn't, it will just heat up.

Seriously, why do you not get this?

 

[Skaloop]

Yes we can. (this trick of argument is useless)

So if you eat nothing but rocks, will you survive?

 

[juvenissun]

So if you eat nothing but rocks, will you survive?

No.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly. A rock will take no action.

A human, on the other hand, will. They will get sunburnt. They will start sweating to keep cool. Also sorts of changes will take place in order to maintain a constant internal condition. A rock doesn't, it will just heat up.

Seriously, why do you not get this?

I agree on your wise observation.
But this does not say the rock is not alive.

 

[juvenissun]

Rubbish. Snakes are perfectly capable of altering their internal condition in response to an environmental change.

And that is not the rock altering itself, is it? It's the environment causing the change. It's simple flow of heat from one area to another. That is NOT what I was talking about. If you cool a rock, will it change it's internal condition to maintain a temperature? Life forms do this all the time, in response to temperature how much water there is, chemical balances for certain reactions. Rocks do NOT do this, therefore your point fails.

And it doesn't happen in rocks.

Yes, a rock will alter itself under the influence of extreme temperature (beyond what it can take, for example, 100°C.)

It depends on how fast you cool a rock. If cooled too fast to respond, the rock will be "hurt".

A rock is very sensitive to its chemical environment. If you put it in water, it will behave differently than it does in air.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yes, a rock will alter itself under the influence of extreme temperature (beyond what it can take, for example, 100°C.)

No, it will not "alter itself". It is not exerting control over its own conditions. It is having conditions exerted on it.

It depends on how fast you cool a rock. If cooled too fast to respond, the rock will be "hurt".

The literalist trying to use metaphor to disentangle himself from a completely pointless knot he's tied himself in? That's pathetic.

A rock is very sensitive to its chemical environment. If you put it in water, it will behave differently than it does in air.

You've rather left behind the issue of homeostasis now, not that you've shown any signs so far of grasping the concept. I thought it was a fairly straightforward concept, but clearly it is beyond your limited abilities.

 

[Kylie]

I agree on your wise observation.
But this does not say the rock is not alive.

So even though it shows that a rock does NOT perform one of the things needed in order to call it a life form, it is still alive.

How can it be alive if it fails the first test for being alive?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, a rock will alter itself under the influence of extreme temperature (beyond what it can take, for example, 100°C.)

It depends on how fast you cool a rock. If cooled too fast to respond, the rock will be "hurt".

A rock is very sensitive to its chemical environment. If you put it in water, it will behave differently than it does in air.

Completely different. That is a change caused by the water. The rock is not actively changing because of the water. It is passively changing. Life forms undergo ACTIVE changes, not passive ones.