Trees are NOT alive.

Not open for further replies.
Only the first one applies to organisms, and it's a very poor definition as well.
Explain how trees do not qualify.
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.
It isnt a poor definition. The confusion comes from here:

1: having life : not dead or inanimate.

It is true but the main word here is actually inanimate.

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 ?
Did anyone actually read my post?!

The dictionary quotation that John posted directly leads to:
John99(Indirectly) said:
15: living beings (as of a particular kind or environment) <forest life>

I think that ends this discussion. As for our own personal definitions of words, I think that needs no argument.
Immediate reaction. You show me where a snowflake does not interact (react) with their environment. Is a snowflake alive?

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.
Not open for further replies.