* A rock is commonly changed by its internal forces.
Name how rocks change themselves, without including ANY outside contributing force. Not the wind, not water, etc. Because even cells deprived of nutrients do not cease to change before dying.
* The old rock is usually consumed or partially consumed when changed to a new rock.
There is no consumption, pieces break off and never become part of the new rock sure, but two rocks melding together because of OUTSIDE PRESSURE ENACTED ON THEM are not consuming each other. Furthermore, "consumption in reproduction" is not a qualifier to be alive; bacteria don't consume themselves when they replicate, that wouldn't even make sense. And an ovum merging with a sperm for fertilization would be the biggest stretch of the word "consume" that I have ever heard. You have a weird fixation on this quality you like to push that is in no way relevant.
What really perplexes me is that you go this far with analogies to try to argue that rocks are alive, and yet earlier you claimed plants WEREN'T alive. What the heck do you think rocks do that plants don't that makes them more alive in your mind?
* A rock responds to outside stimulation actively and sometimes, quickly.
Breaking because of an outside force is not the same as reacting to outside stimulation. A cell being crushed isn't mediating a response to the force, it is simply being annihilated. A living organism can change in response to a stimulus without said stimulus directly instigating the change, such as hormones triggering the cell to respond by dividing. The hormones don't divide the cell, the cell mediates the division. There are no cases in which rocks break or meld together that is a result of the rocks themselves mediating it. Outside heat and pressure cause it.
Comment: how would you even tell the difference between a "living" and "dead" rock? With actually living cells, their internal processes cease, but since rocks don't have any, how would you tell the difference?
* And a rock DOES pass on its "genetic" information to offsprings. (so the "ancestors" of a rock could be identified.
Negatory. Being able to identify the location a rock comes from is not the same as being able to tell any great details about the rocks they came from aside from composition. Heck, rocks don't even necessarily come from other rocks; limestone forms as a result of debris from deadorganisms piling up. It doesn't grow as a crystal or anything like that.
WHY should a silicon-based life function like a carbon-based life?
You are likely internally thinking I mean with DNA, etc., when that is not what I mean. Living cells, by definition, have certain traits I know conventional rocks cannot have. Thus, I know that even an alien that looks outwardly like a rock CANNOT be internally composed identically to, say, a piece of granite. I am not saying that life on other planets has to be physiologically all that similar to life on Earth. I am saying that it CAN'T be indistinguishable from a typical, non-living rock.
You are still young. Don't let your brain be frozen to what the earth has. That is why a life-evaluating space team needs not only biologists, but also geologists.
So says the creationist that thinks rocks are alive and plants aren't and cannot be convinced otherwise despite recognizing that he isn't debating on a topic he has any expertise in -_-.
