Trees are NOT alive.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Enmos, you still have no conception of the point i am making. To you a tree and a wire are the same.
 
John, the "a" in alive isn't the same with a in "asexual" or "atheist". It is not the
opposite of live. Alive is an adjective or a feature of a living thing. What referred
as living thing is the one who can grow, can reproduce, have respiration activity,
etc. A wire can’t grow, can’t reproduce, don’t have respiration organ, don't have
metabolism activity, etc. But trees do.
 
Please forgive a brief interruption. How about Julie Andrews and " The HIlls are Alive with the Sound of Music". Is this a good not to end on ?
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

With wires it is a metaphor. With plants it is not.

Beside, no one says a wire is alive.
They say it is a live wire.

Which is, John, a metaphor.

It is not used metaphorically with plants. You clearly are not sophisticated when it comes to language.

If I say the issue is 'dead' this does not mean it was like a human alive before.

You are aware of the difference between metaphorical and literal meanings, yes?
 
Thank you. The "a" i was referring to is that when we think of creatures as alive we think of animated behaviors, reactions, movement.

A tree is staionary and does not move, this is why i used that analogy. Not the best but if you think about it in those terms than a tree and a human are as close to opposite we can get without there being trees that move from one position to another.:)

All i am saying is that while it is acceptable to call trees alive it is not entirely accurate. That is all.
 
John99 said:
Thank you. The "a" i was referring to is that when we think of creatures as alive we think of animated behaviors, reactions, movement.

A tree is staionary and does not move, this is why i used that analogy. Not the best but if you think about it in those terms than a tree and a human are as close to opposite we can get without there being trees that move from one position to another.:)
Click to expand...

tree's grow.
they move towards the sun.
many plants move.
 
John99 said:
Thank you. The "a" i was referring to is that when we think of creatures as alive we think of animated behaviors, reactions, movement.

A tree is staionary and does not move, this is why i used that analogy. Not the best but if you think about it in those terms than a tree and a human are as close to opposite we can get without there being trees that move from one position to another.:)

All i am saying is that while it is acceptable to call trees alive it is not entirely accurate. That is all.
Click to expand...

Well, the definition of life does not include "movement" or animated behaviors. :)

If we say movement is characteristic of life, then cars are also living things, and so do character in cartoon movies :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Life is a condition that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism and reproduction.
Click to expand...
 
Rrrr... perhaps we are all misunderstood what this guy (John) meant.

John, were you trying to say that a tree is a living thing but not alive?

In that case, you are right. Unless you deny that it is a living thing.

We can say a street is alive with carnival, it does not mean that a carnival
or a street is a living thing, but yes it is alive.
 
inzomnia said:
Rrrr... perhaps we are all misunderstood what this guy (John) meant.

John, were you trying to say that a tree is a living thing but not alive?

In that case, you are right. Unless you deny that it is a living thing.

We can say a street is alive with carnival, it does not mean that a carnival
or a street is a living thing.
Click to expand...

A tree is a living thing, therefor it is alive.
 
The music is so alive. It does not mean that music is a living thing.
The tree is so alive. That would be rather weird. But it is a living thing/organism.
 
inzomnia said:
In a biological context, yes it is. In a context such as mention by number 4,
not it is not. It's a matter of context, Enmos.
Click to expand...

:bugeye:

What section are we in again ?
And only an idiot would use any other definition than the first one where trees are concerned.
He's just trying to worm his way out of this..

Edit: As for the context, shall I provide the original one ?
 
kenworth said:
no,trees reproduce.
Click to expand...

Kenworth, if i take a glass of water and spill it onto a piece of metal and in turn we have samller water droplet then we also have reproduction. Like it or not those drops are a reproduction of the original fluid. The evaporate at different intervals, some are smaller and some are larger so we cannot say that they are identical.

IF the sun squeezed out a smaller reproduction would that make any real difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top