Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Enmos, Jul 28, 2008.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Any meaningful existence is surely based upon thought?
Is that an arrogance or an approximation of truth?
Well, yes ... But what did you expect? That he or people in general will be enlightened? :thankyou:
Often, they are not, and this is just the way things are on planet Earth.
The thread is not about meaningful existence; that would be an antropomorphism if we are discussing trees.
The question : Is a tree alive ?
Until it's dead.
The problem seems to be that John99 does not understand that in its most basic sense "alive" means "to have life".
The sun example earlier was a good example.
So is your definition of "alive." It's just an opinion that happens also to be a distortion of reality.
Is it better omn other planets ?
Well.. I'm disappointed. I know people won't easily give up their more complicated ideas.. but this.. ?
It's almost like someone is saying grass is blue, and when pointed out his error just keeps yelling that grass is blue.
I don't understand it.. :shrug:
Although it's in the definition he himself gave !
Originally Posted by John99
oh and kenwworth. The way that trees reproduce is nothing like human reproduction. For one thing humans need another human. Plants do not, it is the amalgamation of two beings that separates alive from not (truly) alive. ”
“ Originally Posted by John99
I consider bacteria to be alive too.
You brought up reproduction but i do know that some bacteria reproduce sexually with a male and a female. Either way bacteria are very, very much alive. Trees are organisms but not alive and they are closer to a rock than to an ant. ”
“ Originally Posted by John99
You brought up reproduction. I dont think i ever made any statement like that nor would I. ”
look at the two parts in red
:bugeye: I just randomly picked one of the posts to quote.
This thread is great for humor, but do the rest of you honestly believe that John99 thinks trees are not alive? Or not living, or which ever way the semantics went? I just can't seem to get my mind arround the concept that anyone could be that far away from the consenus as to whether a tree is alive! I've tried, really, I have. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think he is just stirring the pot here... Please admit you're just trolling, right John99?
On the other hand, if everyone is still having a good old time at this, I say have at it... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree.. I feel the same way.
The alternative is too disturbing.
F**kin amen, brother...
I accused him of trolling and receive a Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! in return. Of course a good troll would not say 'Oh, you got me, I am a troll'.
My theory is that he responded impulsively at first. Found himself in a corner and rather than admit it he's just dug in his heels.
But maybe he's really a computer program meant to simulate a human
AND NOT REALLY ALIVE.
Perhaps he is jealous that we consider trees alive.
lol everything is just a matter of definition, nothing matters, everything is alive, the ancients said so, but materialists don't agree, they made rocks dead by defining them dead.
If everything is a matter of definition, I assume I am free to define everything as nothing.
If trees were really alive, then they would know better than to mess with us.
You havewn't seen the mess they make on my car when I live it in thye driveway in aitumn
I consider it rather tragical.
Separate names with a comma.