..... Just as a computer is a complex machine able to run for hours at the touch of a button, a plant is a complex self-replicating food source but it is not alive. .....
74 comments
life n.
(Dictionary.com )
Last time I checked, plants were organisms. Thus, they are alive.
plants ... aren't alive?
HAHAHAHA.
I read the article. Truly astounding. The claim is, because the bible never mentions death in regards to plants, and equates blood to life (arguable whether plants have what can be called blood), that plants mustn't be alive.
Of course, bronze-age man may very well have thought this, since plants don't move about like animals do. But, bronze-age man was wrong about a great many things.
"Natural Perspective
The Plant Kingdom (Plantae)
Dear old Kent wouldn't be able to breath if it weren't for our plant life. Maybe that would be a good thing.
@ atrasicarius
Kent can multitask!
Plants have cells, they interact with their environment, respond to stimulus, they're capable of reproduction, they're made up of DNA, they're carbon based and they require fuel and gas exchanges to survive. Ergo, they're alive . If they aren't, then neither are you and I.
Computers don't do any of the above. Ergo, not alive.
"Ergo" is the perfect word to use when talking down to fundies.
Plants are most definitely alive given any mainstream definition of Life. They may or may not be CONSCIOUS (doubtful, but still open for debate), and they are certainly not SENTIENT, but those are entirely different matters.
Wow... Ok... so, since you're a "scientist" Kenty baby, define life. How are plants not living? You say yourself they are self replicating, which is a fundamental basis for life to evolve, so if that's not part of it where does life begin to be defined as living?
[a plant is a complex self-replicating food source but it is not alive.]
Oh, Kent...you're so funny! (By funny, I mean ignorant).
A plant is not alive?
Are you serious?!!
paidblow :
Kent then claims that this is where we get the expression "you can't get blood out of a turnip."
I suspect he's making that up, too.
Nothing in the OT says death did not exist prior to "sin". That was Paul's invention. Where he got it from is anyone's guess. He didn't get it from the scripture of his day. If there was no death, how come the Garden of Eden had a "Tree of Life" that gave immortality?
Most Christians interpret Paul's statement as meaning death of the immortal spirit (because of the closing of heaven to mankind until Christ re-opened it), not the death of the physical body.
"a plant is a complex self-replicating food source but it is not alive. ....."
Except that it is.
I wonder if it's a bad thing that I can almost, sort of, kind of, if I squint real hard and stop thinking, make out what his point was with the whole computer but...
Kent Hovind is possibly the stupidest human being to ever walk the Earth.
I say "possibly" not because I am not certain that there is not and never was a person on the planet less intelligent than Kent Hovind, but because I am not certain that he is human--that the human brain would be capable of this level of stupidity without having suffered severe head trauma. Compared to Kent Hovind, Gene Ray is as insightful and lucid as Carl Sagan.
@Wehpudicabok
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
Pick up a biology book and flip to the word "autotroph", but wait, you can't. You don't believe in science. Well, with that in mind, no one can help you except by smashing you upside the head.
Hm, let's see...
- can reproduce
- take in food
- has DNA
- can and does adapt to it's environment
and many others...
...therefore proving that plants are alive. Thank you, you fail :3
"...a plant is a complex self-replicating food source but it is not alive."
A plant is an organism, ergo it is alive. Got a question for you, Kent. What happens when you cut roses from a bush? The bush will continue to grow after the cutting, but what happens to the flowers you cut? Will they live forever?
It's okay, I can wait...
...
Yeah, didn't think so. Nimrod.
Computers don't just work at the touch of a button they require a constant diet of electricity to keep them going. In a similar way, plants need a constant diet of sunlight and carbon gases to keep them alive. Perhaps that is what Knut is trying to say.
But he's got it all wrong. Plants are not machines.
Plants are organic, sentient creatures. Kunt is a living example: the brains of a vegetable in a human form.
fergus
"a plant is a complex self-replicating food source but it is not alive."
Even L. Ron Hubbard (testing an early version of his E-Meter on a tomato plant) acknowledged that plants are alive:
image
Congratulations, Kent! You've just proved that the pseudo-science of $cientology is superior to that of you, and Creationism/Intelligent Design as a whole.
BTW, don't forget to keep dropping the soap!
"Just as a computer is a complex machine able to run for hours at the touch of a button, a cow is a complex self-replicating food source but it is not alive."
In other words: nice try, but you're still wrong.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
