The role of vegetation in creationism

[ByTheSpirit]

So earlier I was thinking about this and wanted to ask this here.

What role does vegetation (trees, grass, etc) play in the scientific process of "the beginning of the universe"? More importantly, where did that first seed come from?

I mean trees don't just grow out of nothing, right? There must be a seed for a tree or even grass to grow. Am I right? I'm not botanist (spelling?) obviously, but its something I find worthy of consideration.

I mean I find it universally impossible that a single cell organism would survive a "Big Bang" or even more so, a giant ball of volcanic rock and lava to evolve. But even more so, a SEED? Where did all this vegetation come from if not from a creator? Seriously! I know someone here believes in evolution, please explain to me this impossibility...

 

[morse86]

Very good point, did not even think of this. The evolutionists are running for the hills. Of course, they will come up with some 21st century BS pseudo science jargon babble "evolution doesn't need to answer that to be legit".

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm not aware of anyone thinking life originated in the big bang.

Every hypothesis I've seen for abiogenesis has been about it forming in liquid water on a planet.

Trees don't have to form from seeds, a more ancient plant would be more like modern algae with the more solid structure evolving over eons.

If you look the fossil record, in the time of the dinosaurs there were ferns and pine kind of things, but no fruiting and flowering trees. Further back there are even simpler plants.

 

[EternalDragon]

Apparently they think that algae mats first sprang into life somehow and then from there evolved to more complex ferns and grasses and then to trees with bark and the seed ability came later.

This is, I think, separate from simple proteobacteria somehow springing into life and eventually evolving upwards through unguided, natural processes to more complex animal structures.

How you go from simple and relatively low biological complexity to extreme biological complexity seems to be random, unintelligent natural processes that bypass body plans and other barriers by magic.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Fair enough... one of the better answers I've read on this question. Let me ask you, the purpose of evolution is survival right? The premise is that species evolve to survive changing environments and avoid threats, survival?

How can a plant decide it has to survive? Survival is a product of intelligence. As a military veteran, I can attest, survival instincts are a direct result of the knowledge that I could die. Survival is the process we take to avoid death. Plants/vegetation do not have intelligence, how can they decide that they need to evolve to survive?

So even outside of a "trees and plants" didn't have to come from a seed because they evolved. How? How can an unintelligent thing decide it wants to survive?

 

[Shemjaza]

Fair enough... one of the better answers I've read on this question. Let me ask you, the purpose of evolution is survival right? The premise is that species evolve to survive changing environments and avoid threats, survival?

How can a plant decide it has to survive? Survival is a product of intelligence. As a military veteran, I can attest, survival instincts are a direct result of the knowledge that I could die. Survival is the process we take to avoid death. Plants/vegetation do not have intelligence, how can they decide that they need to evolve to survive?

So even outside of a "trees and plants" didn't have to come from a seed because they evolved. How? How can an unintelligent thing decide it wants to survive?

There's no decision needed, the chemicals and structure of plants allow then to survive.

If you have two plant type things, one with a trait that will lead it to surviving and reproducing and one without... the one without will just die, leaving a space for the survivor to grow into.

Evolution is just a consequence of imperfect replication. Many of a plants descendants will be slightly different from each other, the ones with the over all best adaptations will thrive and have more offspring.

 

[Shemjaza]

Apparently they think that algae mats first sprang into life somehow and then from there evolved to more complex ferns and grasses and then to trees with bark and the seed ability came later.

This is, I think, separate from simple proteobacteria somehow springing into life and eventually evolving upwards through unguided, natural processes to more complex animal structures.

How you go from simple and relatively low biological complexity to extreme biological complexity seems to be random, unintelligent natural processes that bypass body plans and other barriers by magic.

We're talking about very, very gradual changes here. Especially in plants you have less problems with body plan as they don't have vital organs like animals.

We can see examples of life where single celled creatures sometimes collect into multi celled structures, it's just another step of different cells specialising for different purposes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Let me ask you, the purpose of evolution is survival right?

Evolution has no purpose. It is a fact, like gravity.

The premise is that species evolve to survive changing environments and avoid threats, survival?

That's not quite right. They don't evolve purposefully in order to survive.

The keys are variation and selection.

Variation: offspring are not exact copies of their parents. Some are bigger, some are smaller. Some are faster, some are tougher. Every generation of species produces variation in its members.

Selection:The conditions the members of some species live in will select for different features. Maybe the small survive. Maybe the fast survive. But the creatures that survive to produce the next generation may not be just like their parents. On average, they may have gotten faster or smaller. They don't decide for themselves. The facts of life decide for them.

Rocks don't decide to fall down. Creatures don't have a meeting and decide that the small ones will all die, and the large ones will live and mate and produce still larger children. The facts of the environment lead to that outcome.

 

[lasthero]

Fair enough... one of the better answers I've read on this question. Let me ask you, the purpose of evolution is survival right? The premise is that species evolve to survive changing environments and avoid threats, survival?

How can a plant decide it has to survive? Survival is a product of intelligence. As a military veteran, I can attest, survival instincts are a direct result of the knowledge that I could die. Survival is the process we take to avoid death. Plants/vegetation do not have intelligence, how can they decide that they need to evolve to survive?

So even outside of a "trees and plants" didn't have to come from a seed because they evolved. How? How can an unintelligent thing decide it wants to survive?

Question for you.

If you actually care, I mean really want to know, why don't you go to a science forum and ask actual scientists about this?

 

[JayFern]

Question for you.

If you actually care, I mean really want to know, why don't you go to a science forum and ask actual scientists about this?

They don't 'really' want to know because they are happy believing what they have been told to believe.
Where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise. It must be their ignorance that makes and keeps them feeling happy.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

It is a legitimate question and this is the creation forum right? This is the proper place for such a question.

 

[Euler]

It is a legitimate question and this is the creation forum right? This is the proper place for such a question.

And I think you have most of your answer.

We are not sure how the very first replicating life forms originated.

Let me say that again. We are not sure how living things first appeared.

No. One more time. We don't know how life got here.

However - once it got here, the process by which it varied and developed is VERY well understood.

 

[EternalDragon]

And I think you have most of your answer.

We are not sure how the very first replicating life forms originated.

Let me say that again. We are not sure how living things first appeared.

No. One more time. We don't know how life got here.

However - once it got here, the process by which it varied and developed is VERY well understood.

Yes, variation among species was a built in design feature of creation from the intelligent designer and is understood.

The other answers can be found in a book with help from the holy spirit.

 

[Delphiki]

So earlier I was thinking about this and wanted to ask this here.

What role does vegetation (trees, grass, etc) play in the scientific process of "the beginning of the universe"? More importantly, where did that first seed come from?

I mean trees don't just grow out of nothing, right? There must be a seed for a tree or even grass to grow. Am I right? I'm not botanist (spelling?) obviously, but its something I find worthy of consideration.

I mean I find it universally impossible that a single cell organism would survive a "Big Bang" or even more so, a giant ball of volcanic rock and lava to evolve. But even more so, a SEED? Where did all this vegetation come from if not from a creator? Seriously! I know someone here believes in evolution, please explain to me this impossibility...

The universe began to expand from a singularity 14 billion years ago. The evidence for the earliest life on earth dates to 3.5 billion years old. There's an awful lot of stellar nucleosynthesis going on in the universe for the 10 billion years prior to forge the various elements found in organic compounds on earth today.

Any time before life was known to exist on earth is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution as it addresses the diversity of life on earth... and it has nothing to do with Big Bang Theory.

 

[Delphiki]

Yes, variation among species was a built in design feature of creation from the intelligent designer and is understood.

Where's your evidence? How does it compare to the evidence for modification through common descent?

The other answers can be found in a book with help from the holy spirit.

Golden Compass?


Sometimes I think the only role of vegetation in creationism is to believe in things like creationism.

 

[EternalDragon]

Where's your evidence? How does it compare to the evidence for modification through common descent?

It's called natural selection. And we all have the same evidence in which to draw conclusions.

The universe began to expand from a singularity 14 billion years ago. The evidence for the earliest life on earth dates to 3.5 billion years old. There's an awful lot of stellar nucleosynthesis going on in the universe for the 10 billion years prior to forge the various elements found in organic compounds on earth today.

Any time before life was known to exist on earth is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution as it addresses the diversity of life on earth... and it has nothing to do with Big Bang Theory.

Bringing life to the dead, eh?

 

[lasthero]

And we all have the same evidence in which to draw conclusions.

Not all conclusions are equal. Hollow Earth Theorists have all the same evidence, too, bu that doesn't mean their conclusion about the Earth being hollow has any merit.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, variation among species was a built in design feature of creation from the intelligent designer and is understood.

If you say so. So you accept the mechanisms of evolution and you like to pretend that we need magic... but the mechanisms in place are all we need to go from modern life to the primordial goo.

Please feel free to point out the mutation that is impossible or the uncross-able gap. (Specifics not frantic hand waving).

The other answers can be found in a book with help from the holy spirit.

How convenient. You know it's true, and I'll know it's true when I read it... but only once I already know it's true.

Can you at least imagine how completely unsatisfactory that response is to someone without a religion?

Bringing life to the dead, eh?

Happens every day.

With only sunlight for power plants transform lifeless minerals and gases into living plant matter by a sequence of perfectly understandable and non miraculous chemical reactions.

 

[lasthero]

It is a legitimate question and this is the creation forum right? This is the proper place for such a question.

It's a scientific question. You're free to ask it anywhere you like, I'm just curious why you'd come here, instead of a place where you're certain to come across people with expertise on the subject.

I could point you to certain forums that are more frequented by scientists than this one, where you'd get dozens of answers from experts in the field. Creationists don't go to those forums very often, they'd love to see you.

 

[Delphiki]

It's called natural selection. And we all have the same evidence in which to draw conclusions.

Maybe you didn't notice, but "natural selection" has the word "natural" in it. You mentioned a creator. Here we have a conflict. We also still don't have evidence for a creator.

Bringing life to the dead, eh?

Are you being cryptic on purpose? I can't tell.