Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[juvenissun]

But not nearly as amazing as you asserting that rocks are alive.

Dizredux
​

That is nothing when compared with the creation of plants.

 

[juvenissun]

And when a rock changes due to a rise in temperature, what part of the rock controls the changes that happen to the rock?

Because you'll find that any changes that happen to the rock are SOLELY the result of the temperature change, not any change caused by the rock trying to maintain a constant condition for itself.

Rocks have different capability in dealing with temperature change on the surface of the earth. Some rocks can control the change better than other rocks. If the capability is low, then rock will die faster.

 

[juvenissun]

Only in the most basic fashion.

By this logic, the cake I cook is alive, because when I put it in a heated environment (the oven), its internal temperature changes.

Is a cake alive, Juve? Is it?

Of course not. So we can conclude that something heating up when it is placed somewhere warm does not count as evidence it is alive.

In human wisdom, one criterion is not good enough to define life. So, you listed 4 (?) criteria to check on anything to be alive or not. Of course, cake can not pass the check. But rock can.

So, those four common biological criteria used to identify a life is not good enough.

 

[juvenissun]

That's is not even funny, a child's comic would not even print that.

Not funny. It is a very high level argument.

 

[bhsmte]

This thing about rocks being alive reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If3SXJeZzMQ

 

[bhsmte]

Not funny. It is a very high level argument.

It's high level alright, but not on the scale you are thinking of.

 

[MoneyGuy]

You guys being trolled? It's the only rational explanation for the nonsense being spewed.

 

[Naturalism]

I argued that a rock is alive, because you suggest a plant is alive. If rock is not alive, neither is plant.

Go back a few pages to where KTS cited the properties for living things. Rock's don't meet them, nor do viruses. It's really that simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

You guys being trolled? It's the only rational explanation for the nonsense being spewed.

We're fine.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Not funny. It is a very high level argument.

This thread is exposing a high level fruitcake perhaps, but a very high level argument? No.

No one reading this thread is thinking they are doing anything other than rubbernecking a car crash where juve, through his own delusion and ignorance, has driven himself straight into a brick wall. The resulting wreckage is sort of interesting to look at but also makes you grimace and feel as if you should look away.

 

[MoneyGuy]

We're fine.

I know you are, but we shouldn't be feeding the troll. I don't believe that the person actually believes what he/she is saying

 

[florida2]

Juve - how about we look at this at the cellular level? After all, that's where most definitions of life arise.

Plants and animals are both made of cells. While there are differences between the two, there are lots of similarities and both work by the same general processes eg. respiration of nutrients by mitochondria to release energy, transport of substances, protein synthesis etc etc. Plant and animal cells are unquestionably alive. Therefore, plants are alive as well as animals are. Rocks, however, are not made of cells and do not carry out any of these processes of homeostasis.

 

[bhsmte]

I know you are, but we shouldn't be feeding the troll. I don't believe that the person actually believes what he/she is saying

For his sake, I hope you are right, but I am not so sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe that the person actually believes what he/she is saying

I believe Juvenissun is into what is called sacred geology.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve - how about we look at this at the cellular level? After all, that's where most definitions of life arise.

Plants and animals are both made of cells. While there are differences between the two, there are lots of similarities and both work by the same general processes eg. respiration of nutrients by mitochondria to release energy, transport of substances, protein synthesis etc etc. Plant and animal cells are unquestionably alive. Therefore, plants are alive as well as animals are. Rocks, however, are not made of cells and do not carry out any of these processes of homeostasis.

Plants and animals do not have the same cell. That is why one is plant and the other is animal.

Rocks do have cells. They are mineral grains of the rock. The function of minerals to rock is similar to that of cells to plant or animal.

 

[juvenissun]

I know you are, but we shouldn't be feeding the troll. I don't believe that the person actually believes what he/she is saying

It is not believe or not. It is about scientific argument. You do not "believe" because you are scientifically incompetent.

 

[juvenissun]

I believe Juvenissun is into what is called sacred geology.

Thanks, AV. You use this term a few times. This time, it rings a little in my mind.
Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks, AV. You use this term a few times. This time, it rings a little in my mind.
Thanks.

I could be wrong, bro.

I hope I didn't offend you!

 

[Kylie]

In human wisdom, one criterion is not good enough to define life. So, you listed 4 (?) criteria to check on anything to be alive or not. Of course, cake can not pass the check. But rock can.

So, those four common biological criteria used to identify a life is not good enough.

What is it that rocks do that cake does not?

 

[Kylie]

Rocks have different capability in dealing with temperature change on the surface of the earth. Some rocks can control the change better than other rocks. If the capability is low, then rock will die faster.

If I show you a rock, how can you tell if it is dead or not? What tests do you perform?

Also, why is it that virtually ALL biologists and geologists on the planet disagree with you?