The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course. I won't try to change any definition without a practical purpose (ain't broken, no fix). One minor reason of changing that is to solve a critical problem in Buddhism. They can not find the answer for thousands of years.

Yes, I am formal. But it is not a paper. No question, no explanation.

But you have zero authority to change the definition of a word, especially when you have consistently shown that you don't have any intellectual authority.

 

[Kylie]

No, I can not. I redefine it to mean something special, which is not whatever I want. Otherwise, there will be problems. I am not that good.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But the things you say that rocks do that count as life...

That's not life.

 

[juvenissun]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But the things you say that rocks do that count as life...

That's not life.

The problem is that you DO NOT KNOW WHY. If you do not know why is a rock not alive, then you do not really know what is life.

 

[Kylie]

The problem is that you DO NOT KNOW WHY. If you do not know why is a rock not alive, then you do not really know what is life.

Of course I know why a rock is not alive. You are the one who seems confused on the subject!

 

[tas8831]

You are right. But I am not writing a paper here.

Interesting. More than one of the creationists that I have caught plagiarizing on this forum made the same 'argument.'

 

[juvenissun]

Of course I know why a rock is not alive. You are the one who seems confused on the subject!

I know what you know. You do not know what I know.
It is good for you to know, many things do have alternatives.

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting. More than one of the creationists that I have caught plagiarizing on this forum made the same 'argument.'

I won't call it plagiarism if someone took my idea expressed here for a professional paper. God's wisdom is infinite. Don't be stingy. The more you give, the more you will have.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know what you know. You do not know what I know.
It is good for you to know, many things do have alternatives.

Except you don't seem to know anything.

 

[Jimmy D]

I won't call it plagiarism if someone took my idea expressed here for a professional paper. God's wisdom is infinite. Don't be stingy. The more you give, the more you will have.

It'd more likely be a psychology paper than a biology paper I would imagine.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem is that you DO NOT KNOW WHY. If you do not know why is a rock not alive, then you do not really know what is life.

You're welcome to redefine a word like 'life' to mean whatever you like - but you should realise that it's a foolish thing to do if you want what you say to be understood - particularly if, as in this case, you decline to provide the definition you're using.

Additionally, if you then attempt to use your custom definition of the word in the context of the common definition, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Rocks are not alive by any common definition of the word - in fact, the word is typically used to distinguish between the living/animate (e.g. biological entities) and the non-living/inanimate (e.g. rocks).

I think you're trolling. Have some self-respect.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You surprised me. Have you really learned in higher education?
Do you know how does a definition or a term, a model get accepted by the science community?

Oh, a singular individual may be the originator of a term and its definition, but the scientific community as a whole decides whether or not to accept said definition. I may discover a new element and get to name it, but if I don't describe its properties accurately, then my "definition" of that element will not be accepted by the scientific community and will be changed to fit reality.

Furthermore, your argument about rocks being alive is pointless if it is dependent upon a definition of life only you accept. You aren't pointing out any problems with the currently accepted scientific standard really, because rocks are so far removed from living cells that not even undiscovered alien ones would have the same structure as them.

 

[juvenissun]

You're welcome to redefine a word like 'life' to mean whatever you like - but you should realise that it's a foolish thing to do if you want what you say to be understood - particularly if, as in this case, you decline to provide the definition you're using.

Additionally, if you then attempt to use your custom definition of the word in the context of the common definition, you are committing the fallacy of equivocation.

Rocks are not alive by any common definition of the word - in fact, the word is typically used to distinguish between the living/animate (e.g. biological entities) and the non-living/inanimate (e.g. rocks).

I think you're trolling. Have some self-respect.

I say a rock is alive. YOU DO NOT KNOW how to refute that.
People (include you) tried and failed.
I don't need to give my definition of life (yet). I just illustrated: yours failed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I say a rock is alive. YOU DO NOT KNOW how to refute that.

... Are you being serious right now? Everyone who corrected you on that post refuted you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I say a rock is alive. YOU DO NOT KNOW how to refute that.
People (include you) tried and failed.
I don't need to give my definition of life (yet). I just illustrated: yours failed.

Obviously, if you don't define what you mean by 'alive', nobody can refute it.

But there's no need to define it yourself when there's a variety of commonly used and understood meanings - in none of which rocks are alive.

It is pointless foolishness and stupidity. You should know better.

 

[juvenissun]

Furthermore, your argument about rocks being alive is pointless if it is dependent upon a definition of life only you accept. You aren't pointing out any problems with the currently accepted scientific standard really, because rocks are so far removed from living cells that not even undiscovered alien ones would have the same structure as them.

No I have not. This is a place for conversation, not for publication. And, ultimately, this is a religion forum. We are talking about ideas. What do you expect?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I have not. This is a place for conversation, not for publication. And, ultimately, this is a religion forum. We are talking about ideas. What do you expect?

We don't expect you to run away, but on the science forums, we expect you actually talk science.

 

[juvenissun]

Obviously, if you don't define what you mean by 'alive', nobody can refute it.

I am using YOUR definition and criteria. And you still can not argue. What does that say?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am using YOUR definition and criteria. And you still can not argue. What does that say?

It says you're confused - you said you were using your own definition (a modified one).

And I haven't given a definition, so which definition are you using ?

As I said, there are a number of definitions, none of which include rocks.

 

[Kylie]

I know what you know.

If you knew what I knew, you would not be making the ludicrous claim that rocks are alive.

You do not know what I know.

That's because I know science and you, apparently, do not.

It is good for you to know, many things do have alternatives.

You use many words, but they have little content. You seem to be utterly incapable of having any kind of meaningful discussion on this subject.

 

[Kylie]

I say a rock is alive. YOU DO NOT KNOW how to refute that.
People (include you) tried and failed.
I don't need to give my definition of life (yet). I just illustrated: yours failed.

People do know how to refute it, and they have refuted it, many times.

The definition of life you are using is arbitrarily redefined so it means whatever you want it to mean, but you have no rational basis for the redefinition.

And how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you claim you don't need to produce evidence for your claims? Your argument is ludicrous and falls apart.