Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Skaloop]

Haha, I am pretty sure you are confusing me with someone else. I am not the one saying that plants are not life, juvenissun is.

Aw, nuts, sorry. Definitely mixed you two up. And read it as "First, plants are not life..." rather than "First plants are not life.."

 

[PsychoSarah]

As I am not a biologist, so my argument has holes. But it is not a big deal.

Every human has different DNA. But we all have human DNA which is different from DNA of other life forms.

But, individual plants of the same species, have very different DNA. In other words, plant species can not be identified by its DNA.

Right? Biology expert.

This is all incorrect when it comes to the plant stuff.

 

[CabVet]

This is all incorrect when it comes to the plant stuff.

It's incorrect when it comes to pretty much every living organism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

According to the theory of evolution, this is not possible.
So, evolution is false.

Highly incorrect, isolated populations evolving separately into unique species only native to one small geographic area is not only allowed in evolutionary theory, but described in detail as being evidence in support of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's incorrect when it comes to pretty much every living organism.

I was being generous.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No. Plants are not life.

You made me wince with that, obviously you don't understand how life is defined.

 

[ihavefoundgod951]

I reject this, I reject it out right!

 

[PsychoSarah]

I reject this, I reject it out right!

Reject what, specifically?

 

[Kylie]

You're making the huge error of reading modern scientific definitions into the text. It very well be that "life" to the Hebrews consisted only of animals. The definition of "life" changes all the time and will continue to change.

Still doesn't explain how plants were able to survive the alleged flood. Just arbitrarily saying they aren't alive doesn't give them the ability to survive underwater for a long time.

Viruses may very well be considered living at some point in the future

We have a pretty good definition of life at the moment - the ability to metabolise, reproduce, consume, excrete, a central control mechanism (be it a brain or a nucleus, etc), and a few other things I've forgotten.

 

[EternalDragon]

Highly incorrect, isolated populations evolving separately into unique species only native to one small geographic area is not only allowed in evolutionary theory, but described in detail as being evidence in support of it.

Oh, you mean birds changing into a variety of birds via natural selection.
Somehow I don't think that is very convincing evidence for evolution.

 

[lasthero]

Oh, you mean birds changing into a variety of birds via natural selection.
Somehow I don't think that is very convincing evidence for evolution.

It is evolution. That you don't accept it as such doesn't change that.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, you mean birds changing into a variety of birds via natural selection.
Somehow I don't think that is very convincing evidence for evolution.

Birds evolving isn't evidence for birds evolving?

 

[CabVet]

Oh, you mean birds changing into a variety of birds via natural selection.
Somehow I don't think that is very convincing evidence for evolution.

And trees evolving into other trees via natural selection is not evidence for evolution either, right? By the way, did you ever answer the question in the OP? Do plants evolve?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh, you mean birds changing into a variety of birds via natural selection.
Somehow I don't think that is very convincing evidence for evolution.

I don't really view your opinion as making a difference in whether or not evolution is valid.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

I don't really view your opinion as making a difference in whether or not evolution is valid.

And yours does? Typical.

 

[CabVet]

And yours does? Typical.

No, it's the evidence behind her opinion that does.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And yours does? Typical.

No, opinion alone of just anyone has nothing to do with whether or not a position is valid.

 

[Kylie]

And yours does? Typical.

No. Opinion does not dictate fact. Facts can not be determined from opinions. An opinion can be very popular, and it can still be wrong.

The only way to discover fact is to examine reality in a rigorous and controlled way, using techniques that are designed to remove any personal bias, and which can be verified empirically and checked objectively by others.

And that is called science.

 

[Only Me]

Oh, you mean birds changing into a variety of birds via natural selection.
Somehow I don't think that is very convincing evidence for evolution.

There is a very simple explanation for that, you are a creationist and you have been trained to reject evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Interestingly there is a definition already.

Maybe you read it and find out plants have DNA & are actually living?

Sorry, I see gibberish, but not any definition.