Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Same as trees my man.
Simon, why are you calling me a troll?![]()
So if you cut off a flower and just leave it lying there is doesn't die ?
Same as trees my man.
Simon, why are you calling me a troll?![]()
It depends on how free you are with the term alive. You can say a light bulb is alive too but a light bulb is made by a human and humans were made by nature. A fish that can jump a foot out of water is alive. This is an entirely different level of life.
Again, the term 'alive' is not restricted to a state of consciousness, John, nor is restricted to humans.
So if you cut off a flower and just leave it lying there is doesn't die ?
Look at it this way. An electrician sees wires as alive and dead, by your reasoning the wire is really alive just as in a human is alive. Sure you can say that a tree is alive but if you go by the strict usage of the word than it is not alive but living. Once you put the a (think of asexual) it changes the word to where a tree would not accurately qualify.
ENMOS,
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=semantics&x=0&y=0
We may as well compare electrical wires to humans. They are both "alive".
As for your Venus Flytrap argument. that just supports my argument because there are different levels of being alive and to put a tree in that catagory with so many legitimate counterarguments then i don't believe a tee accurately meets the requirements as to being alive.
i think his definition of life is based the nervous system.maybe.
i think his definition of life is based the nervous system.maybe.
Last chance to admit that you were just trolling and that trees are living organisms before I consider you a complete imbecile.
Thank you, at least you didnt call me a retard.
Nervous system...not really. Inasmuch as it is not a definitive requirement.
No offense intended but there are also levels to human cognitive ability. I would say that to be average has many advantages.
It doesn't matter what his definition is based on, it's scientifically wrong and he denies that.
We are coming from two entirely different realms of understanding. The tree is green, it is alive...flip a switch and a wire is alive.
The problem is how the term relates to organic matter.
No one called you a retard.
If you are still pretending that trees are not alive I wouldn't consider you average at all but far below.
He did call me a retard (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1943959&postcount=44) and an imbecile. I do understand his frustration but people think differently.