Trees are NOT alive.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Enmos, Jul 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Defend your position.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Only the first one applies to organisms, and it's a very poor definition as well.
    Explain how trees do not qualify.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Blue_UK Drifting Mind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,446
  8. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    Which definition is it that you are relying upon? One of them is "having life" which trees certainly can have or "not inanimate" which living trees certainly are not.

    The other definitions appear to be figurative uses based on that primary sense.

    In any event, if Merriam-Webster *had* a definition of "alive" that categorically excluded trees, then clearly the problem would be with the definition, not with the trees.
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    A tree is closer to a snowflake than it is to a mountain lion.
     
  11. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Im guessing John99 is talking about whether trees are sentient or not. Trees are most definitely alive, but, they are not sentient life forms.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient
    and since when did m-w become the standard dictionary everyone uses?

    EDIT: i was wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2008
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You are going in circles.
    "Inanimate" means, according to your dictionary, "not endowed with life".

    Do you anything more to offer than vague dictionary definition that don't even support your point ?

    Before you looked up these definition, why did you think trees were not alive ?
     
  13. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    That definition does not back up your assertion. dictionaries list all or many meanings of a word. This does not mean that something has to fit all meanings to fit the word.
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, he means there are not alive, as in trees do not qualify as life.

    Perhaps since John seems to think it supports his argument.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I think of alive as being something with the capability to react or some form of immediate interaction.
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No it isn't.
     
  17. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Trees do that... show me that trees do not interact with their environment.
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Life and alive have separate meanings, that is why there are two words to describe them. Of course they qualify as something living.
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Immediate reaction. You show me where a snowflake does not interact (react) with their environment. Is a snowflake alive?
     
  20. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What ?

    Is a tree a living thing or not ?
     
  21. Blue_UK Drifting Mind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,446
    Did anyone actually read my post?!

    The dictionary quotation that John posted directly leads to:
    I think that ends this discussion. As for our own personal definitions of words, I think that needs no argument.
     
  22. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    That's the thread right there. Someones a little confused on definitions?
     
  23. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Are you saying you are completely ignorant ?

    I told you to defend you position, come up with some evidence that supports your argument.
    This is not Philosophy, this is Biology & Genetics.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page