IQ is a measure of how someone's mental age compares to their chronological (calendar) age. It's not really straightforward, but the basic idea is that you divide the person's mental age by their calendar age and multiply by 100. Say, for example, you give a 10 year old a series of questions a 10 year old should be able to answer. If they answer them correctly, they have a score of 10/10=1x100=100. Their IQ is said to be 100. If you give them a series of questions you would expect a 12 year old to be able answer, their score would look like this: 12/10=1.2x100=120 Their IQ is said to be 120. There is really more to it than this, but that should give you a general idea of how it works.
Now, in considering an oak tree or an apple tree, you can certainly know and understand their chronological age. However, because they don't have minds, they have no mental age. Part of the equation is missing. So, there is no way to assign an IQ to an oak tree or apple tree.
Maybe I misunderstood your question. Let me know if I'm on the right track.
Can you become a tree no! you are a human life kind
But an apple tree knows how to grow apples not pears so telling me an apple has no intelligence is vain of logic
sure we cannot point their brain but they must have one
How would they known to grow apples not pears
the same Sun shines on them as the pear tree
they get the same water
and there Pear trees living alone side of apple trees
I think out side the box
so trees have brains maybe not the way we do
Love Roy
Trees don't have brains. In fact, they don't have nervous systems, central or otherwise. They don't need them. What they have is genetic material that has been programmed over time to respond in a particular way to certain situations, conditions and stimulation. Apple trees don't grow pears because their genetic material contains the components to grow apples, not the components to grow pears. They don't think. They don't need to.
When you direct your computer to open the Google page, it doesn't think. It assembles the information that's already stored in it in such a manner as to lead you to Google. Likewise, the apple tree doesn't think. When the correct conditions are present, the preexisting information works together to produce apples. Why? Because the information which is already there is configured to produce apples, not pears or lemons or coconuts.
A tree has no intelligence quotient (IQ) because it has no intelligence. You can't measure something that isn't there.
yes their back up brains are their DNA like our is written in our DNA
everything to made you is in DNA of one cell the brain of the DNA
what is wrote in our DNA? everything that makes us up
It is that simple
our brain is a part of our body but everything in our brain is also stored in our DNA
If you were a atheist your belief in your DNA
your inner self makes you what you are
just like if your a christian your belief would wrote your DNA
that is how smart God was in the creation of us
Love Roy
so·phis·ti·cat·ed1
[səˈfistəˌkādəd]
ADJECTIVE
(of a machine, system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity:
"highly sophisticated computer systems"
synonyms: advanced · modern · state of the art · the latest · new · [more]
maybe another person words more clear a friend
I think everything that is alive has its own form of consciousness. We consider consciousness only as the definition of consciousness at the human level. I think we have to adjust our thoughts about consciousness when we consider an apple tree. An apple tree has a lower level of consciousness that is specific to its own nature.
Perhaps we can use realization instead of consciousness when considering an apple tree. These two terms are closely related to each other in meaning. An apple tree is a realization of its own being as the mind is a realization of its own being. I think the difference is in degree or scope only.
The universe 'apples' and the universe 'humans'. Everything is not only from the same source, everything is the same source. As I say, the difference between a tree and a mind is one of degree of sophistication only.
I hate to say this, but you're relying on flawed logic. There is a specific type of flawed logic that describes such a scenario. You can find more information about it HERE. Frankly, this seems a bit out of character for you. We have had many conversations in the past and I've never seen this side of you.
Failure to prove something is false does not make it true. Likewise, failure to prove something is true does not make it false. In this case, there is an abundance of information that clearly proves that plants do not have anything resembling what we call consciousness. We have no proof, whatsoever, to suggest that plants do have consciousness. The logical conclusion is that plants have no consciousness. As I stated before, you can believe otherwise if you wish. It really won't affect me at all. The burden of proof, however, shifts to you to show some logical basis for your belief that will prove your assertion.
Did you know that your plants respond to music the same as human beings do? It has been proven scientifically through many experiments that plants thrive on music, though there are some who do not agree with the theory. Gardeners, however, have no doubt that fading flowers get a new lease of life by music and flowers blossom in their fullest glory listening to music. In 1973, Dorothy Retallack’s book The Sound of Music and Plants based on scientific experiments created ripples.
Retallack began her experiment at the Colorado Women’s College in Denver. Using three separate laboratories containing the same species of plants, Retallack began her experiment. Piping in different types of music to each facility, she recorded the daily growth of each plant. The results were quite surprising. The plants in the laboratory where music was played daily for three hours a day grew twice as large and became twice as healthy as those in a music-free environment. On the other extreme, plants in the laboratory where music was played for eight hours a day died within two weeks of the start of the experiment.
Dorothy Retallack tried experimenting with different types of music. She played rock to one group of plants and, soothing music to another. The group that heard rock turned out to be sickly and small whereas the other group grew large and healthy. What’s more surprising is that the group of plants listening to the soothing music grew bending towards the radio just as they bend towards the sunlight.
This experiment encouraged many individuals and organizations to exercise the act of playing music to plants. These connoisseurs of music warn you about the sort of music that you play. The plants will grow better if you play soft soothing music of old era instead of loud rock music of Gen X.
The noisy rock music will only make the plants grow feeble and sick. Preferably, play Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven to make your plant grow better. Another important point that we can pick up from Retallack’s experiments is the duration of music. If you are keen on playing music to your plants, keep the time limit to be about three hour. This will make the plants grow healthy and properly. An overdose of music can seriously destroy the plants.
Although music is not an absolutely proven factor in plant development, several studies, along with Dorothy Retallack’s groundbreaking series of experiments, have aided the musical development theory. If you are interested in exploring this option with your own garden, consult The Sound of Music and Plants or other resources to ensure you expose your plants to the optimal type of music for the appropriate amount of time.
"Many of us have heard stories about plants flourishing in rooms with classical music. Typically, though, much of the research on music and plants was, to put it mildly, not carried out by investigators grounded in the scientific method. Not surprisingly, in most of these studies, the plants thrived in music that the experimenter also preferred."
"All that being said, I have to cover myself here by pointing out that some very recent research hints that plants may respond to sounds. Not to music mind you, which is irrelevant for a plant, but to certain vibrations."
All in all, while this offers some fascinating insight on the wonders and complexities of how DNA works, none of it proves that plants have what we refer to as intelligence. (in my opinion)
Music And Plants - How To Use Music To Improve Plant Growth
The classic book The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird documents many scientific, statistically-significant studies done on the fascinating relationship between sound and music and plants.
The right sounds can produce tremendous improvements in growth, and the wrong sounds can do just the opposite. Plants are more aware of their surroundings than we think, probably much more so than us!
Here, I just want to give you a taste of what some researchers have observed with respect to plants and music, and sound and plants. This has direct implications for organic gardening.
Music And Plants
Colorado
Dorothy Retallack did many controlled greenhouse experiments with different genres of music and plants.
She found after 2 weeks, plants physically leaned 15 to 20 degrees towards a radio playing classical and jazz music, while they scramble to grow away from rock music and become sick. Marigolds “listening” to rock music died within 2 weeks, whereas those in the classical music room 6 feet away were flowering.
But by far the most noticeable positive reactions were to classical Indian music for plants. A researcher in India also had success with Indian music...
India
T.C. Singh, head of the department of botany at Annamalai University, did many experiments with Indian plants and music, with amazing results.
Eventually, he stimulated rice harvests that were from 25-60% higher than average, and nearly 50% higher for peanuts and tobacco. Experiments were done on many other plants and had “proven beyond any shadow of doubt that harmonic sound waves affect the growth, flowering, fruiting, and seed-yields of plants”.
Illinois
George Smith, skeptical botanist and agricultural researcher, planted corn and soybeans in separate greenhouses under controlled conditions and began to experiment with music and plants.
In one greenhouse, he played George Gershwin's “Rhapsody in Blue” 24 hours a day, producing thicker, greener plants that weighed 40% more for corn and 24% more for soy. He went on to produce amazing corn harvests using ear-splitting continuous notes at high and low pitches.
Sound And Plants
Ottawa
Two researchers at the University of Ottawa did trials with high-frequency vibrations in wheat. Plants responded best to a frequency of 5000 cycles a second. They were baffled and could not explain why audible sound had nearly doubled wheat harvests.
Canada
Peter Belton, researcher for Canada's Department of Agriculture, controlled the European corn-borer moth by broadcasting ultrasonic waves. 50% of the corn was damaged in the control plot, and only 5% in the plot with sound. The sound plot also had 60% fewer larvae and was 3” taller on average.
New York
George Milstein found that a continuous low hum at 3000 cycles per second accelerated the growth of most of his plants and even caused some of them to bloom six full months ahead of their normal schedule. On the other hand, he was quite adamant that music for plants couldn't possibly have an effect, as they "can't hear."
Conclusion
Of course, many people think this is all bologni, especially when it comes to plants responding to music. Scientists often think it is possible, but that it must all be happening purely because of “physics” and not because plants prefer Debussy to Dylan.
It is romantic to think of plants having a taste more for the “intellectual” music, and I strongly believe this relationship between plants and music is possible after all of my studies into the amazing world of plants, but in terms of music, I don’t know enough to argue one way or the other. Same goes for whether or not my plants know what I'm thinking.
Still, I’m now always more apt to listen to a sitar or string quartet over a stratocaster when I’m out pulling weeds in my organic garden.
Plants responded to sound. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that this is somehow proof that plants have intelligence and that apples have an IQ.
The Great Basin bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva has live age 5,065 in White Mountains, California, United States. A tree this had a lot of time to learn new things
If plants did not have to talk with other they be board
What about Jesus Christ talking to that tree and causing the tree to die from its roots up when made that statement overnight
I hate to say this, but you're relying on flawed logic. There is a specific type of flawed logic that describes such a scenario. You can find more information about it HERE. Frankly, this seems a bit out of character for you. We have had many conversations in the past and I've never seen this side of you.
Failure to prove something is false does not make it true. Likewise, failure to prove something is true does not make it false. In this case, there is an abundance of information that clearly proves that plants do not have anything resembling what we call consciousness. We have no proof, whatsoever, to suggest that plants do have consciousness. The logical conclusion is that plants have no consciousness. As I stated before, you can believe otherwise if you wish. It really won't affect me at all. The burden of proof, however, shifts to you to show some logical basis for your belief that will prove your assertion.
Scientists have mapped the entirety of plants.
They know what all the "body" parts are.
They have named them all-and they know what all the parts CAN do,
and what all the parts DO.
There is no part of the plant that can house a nervous system-
let alone a functioning BRAIN. Plants lack the physical capacity
The Great Basin bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva has live age 5,065 in White Mountains, California, United States. A tree this had a lot of time to learn new things
The Rocky Mountains have had a lot more-but stone doesn't think.
If plants did not have to talk with other they be board
The rocks would be more bored- if either had the capacity to think.
They have named them all-and they know what all the parts CAN do,
and what all the parts DO.
There is no part of the plant that can house a nervous system-
let alone a functioning BRAIN. Plants lack the physical capacity
to think.
Maybe year2027 thinks in the future both computer hardware and software can be placed inside trees and even apples, while turning them into robots. I hope he at least sees that trees would have a difficult time moving and walking.
However, when he first mentioned apple here perhaps he was referring to an apple computer.
Each October, Christopher Columbus is hammered for his voyages of exploitation of native peoples, and Christians are ridiculed for once opposing the forward thinking Columbus and his rejection of the flat earth mythology held by the medieval church. Is any of it true? I’ll leave the question of exploitation to be answered by others, but the flat earth issue is easily answered. In the eleven-volume Our Wonder World, first published in 1914, the editors offered the following undocumented claims: “All the ancient peoples thought the earth was flat, or, if not perfectly flat, a great slightly curving surface,” and “Columbus was trying to convince people that the earth was round."
Even the Encyclopedia Britannica perpetuated the myth of a round-earth solution for Columbus’s voyages as late as 1961: “Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked its edge. Today we know better.” The people knew better in Columbus’s day. A 1983 textbook for fifth-graders reported that Columbus “felt he would eventually reach the Indies in the East. Many Europeans still believed that the world was flat. Columbus, they thought, would fall off the earth.”[2] A 1982 text for eighth-graders said that Europeans “believed . . . that a ship could sail out to sea just so far before it fell off the edge of the sea. . . . The people of Europe a thousand years ago knew little about the world.”
Some parts of world believe it was flat was flat in 1960
I believe dust has a brain too
I have not the right to believe as I believe please tell me?
I am smarter than all of in some things but in way you are than me
We all our strong points and we all weak points in our life
Recommended Posts
waysider
Roy
IQ is a measure of how someone's mental age compares to their chronological (calendar) age. It's not really straightforward, but the basic idea is that you divide the person's mental age by their calendar age and multiply by 100. Say, for example, you give a 10 year old a series of questions a 10 year old should be able to answer. If they answer them correctly, they have a score of 10/10=1x100=100. Their IQ is said to be 100. If you give them a series of questions you would expect a 12 year old to be able answer, their score would look like this: 12/10=1.2x100=120 Their IQ is said to be 120. There is really more to it than this, but that should give you a general idea of how it works.
Now, in considering an oak tree or an apple tree, you can certainly know and understand their chronological age. However, because they don't have minds, they have no mental age. Part of the equation is missing. So, there is no way to assign an IQ to an oak tree or apple tree.
Maybe I misunderstood your question. Let me know if I'm on the right track.
edit:punctuation
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Hi Wayside
Can you become a tree no! you are a human life kind
But an apple tree knows how to grow apples not pears so telling me an apple has no intelligence is vain of logic
sure we cannot point their brain but they must have one
How would they known to grow apples not pears
the same Sun shines on them as the pear tree
they get the same water
and there Pear trees living alone side of apple trees
I think out side the box
so trees have brains maybe not the way we do
Love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Trees don't have brains. In fact, they don't have nervous systems, central or otherwise. They don't need them. What they have is genetic material that has been programmed over time to respond in a particular way to certain situations, conditions and stimulation. Apple trees don't grow pears because their genetic material contains the components to grow apples, not the components to grow pears. They don't think. They don't need to.
When you direct your computer to open the Google page, it doesn't think. It assembles the information that's already stored in it in such a manner as to lead you to Google. Likewise, the apple tree doesn't think. When the correct conditions are present, the preexisting information works together to produce apples. Why? Because the information which is already there is configured to produce apples, not pears or lemons or coconuts.
A tree has no intelligence quotient (IQ) because it has no intelligence. You can't measure something that isn't there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Hi Wayside
in 50 years claim trees do not have intelligence and what they say
To prove something does not think is impossible or have a way to think is impossible
why is there a new circle for every year
if they had no intelligence where they the knowledge to grow, and reproduction of themselves
programmed intelligente is store where? I in the plant brain
My apple computer is not alive but plants are living thing
Love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
if they had no intelligence where they the knowledge to grow, and reproduction of themselves
programmed intelligente is store where?
It's encrypted in their DNA (Their genetic material).
The internet is littered with information on genetics. Take your pick of references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Hi Wayside
yes their back up brains are their DNA like our is written in our DNA
everything to made you is in DNA of one cell the brain of the DNA
what is wrote in our DNA? everything that makes us up
It is that simple
our brain is a part of our body but everything in our brain is also stored in our DNA
If you were a atheist your belief in your DNA
your inner self makes you what you are
just like if your a christian your belief would wrote your DNA
that is how smart God was in the creation of us
Love Roy
so·phis·ti·cat·ed1
[səˈfistəˌkādəd]
ADJECTIVE
(of a machine, system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity:
"highly sophisticated computer systems"
synonyms: advanced · modern · state of the art · the latest · new · [more]
maybe another person words more clear a friend
I think everything that is alive has its own form of consciousness. We consider consciousness only as the definition of consciousness at the human level. I think we have to adjust our thoughts about consciousness when we consider an apple tree. An apple tree has a lower level of consciousness that is specific to its own nature.
Perhaps we can use realization instead of consciousness when considering an apple tree. These two terms are closely related to each other in meaning. An apple tree is a realization of its own being as the mind is a realization of its own being. I think the difference is in degree or scope only.
The universe 'apples' and the universe 'humans'. Everything is not only from the same source, everything is the same source. As I say, the difference between a tree and a mind is one of degree of sophistication only.
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think everything that is alive has its own form of consciousness.
You're free to think whatever you wish.
There is nothing in our vast reserve of knowledge to substantiate the existence of plant consciousness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
there nothing not to proved that plants do not have consciousness a either
it mute but It my belief and I every right as I see best
you believe as you see best
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Roy
I hate to say this, but you're relying on flawed logic. There is a specific type of flawed logic that describes such a scenario. You can find more information about it HERE. Frankly, this seems a bit out of character for you. We have had many conversations in the past and I've never seen this side of you.
Failure to prove something is false does not make it true. Likewise, failure to prove something is true does not make it false. In this case, there is an abundance of information that clearly proves that plants do not have anything resembling what we call consciousness. We have no proof, whatsoever, to suggest that plants do have consciousness. The logical conclusion is that plants have no consciousness. As I stated before, you can believe otherwise if you wish. It really won't affect me at all. The burden of proof, however, shifts to you to show some logical basis for your belief that will prove your assertion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Hi waysider
Did you know that me and Todd Guess A lot used talk to about things like the IQ of plants
because you see no prove
the atheist tried to prove that was no God
I wasted my time trying there was a God
Now I just them believe as they believe
it no big deal to me
Love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Plants Respond to Music
Did you know that your plants respond to music the same as human beings do? It has been proven scientifically through many experiments that plants thrive on music, though there are some who do not agree with the theory. Gardeners, however, have no doubt that fading flowers get a new lease of life by music and flowers blossom in their fullest glory listening to music. In 1973, Dorothy Retallack’s book The Sound of Music and Plants based on scientific experiments created ripples.
Retallack began her experiment at the Colorado Women’s College in Denver. Using three separate laboratories containing the same species of plants, Retallack began her experiment. Piping in different types of music to each facility, she recorded the daily growth of each plant. The results were quite surprising. The plants in the laboratory where music was played daily for three hours a day grew twice as large and became twice as healthy as those in a music-free environment. On the other extreme, plants in the laboratory where music was played for eight hours a day died within two weeks of the start of the experiment.
Dorothy Retallack tried experimenting with different types of music. She played rock to one group of plants and, soothing music to another. The group that heard rock turned out to be sickly and small whereas the other group grew large and healthy. What’s more surprising is that the group of plants listening to the soothing music grew bending towards the radio just as they bend towards the sunlight.
This experiment encouraged many individuals and organizations to exercise the act of playing music to plants. These connoisseurs of music warn you about the sort of music that you play. The plants will grow better if you play soft soothing music of old era instead of loud rock music of Gen X.
The noisy rock music will only make the plants grow feeble and sick. Preferably, play Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven to make your plant grow better. Another important point that we can pick up from Retallack’s experiments is the duration of music. If you are keen on playing music to your plants, keep the time limit to be about three hour. This will make the plants grow healthy and properly. An overdose of music can seriously destroy the plants.
Although music is not an absolutely proven factor in plant development, several studies, along with Dorothy Retallack’s groundbreaking series of experiments, have aided the musical development theory. If you are interested in exploring this option with your own garden, consult The Sound of Music and Plants or other resources to ensure you expose your plants to the optimal type of music for the appropriate amount of time.
Does this prove plants have an intelligence
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Many of us have heard stories about plants flourishing in rooms with classical music. Typically, though, much of the research on music and plants was, to put it mildly, not carried out by investigators grounded in the scientific method. Not surprisingly, in most of these studies, the plants thrived in music that the experimenter also preferred."
------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All that being said, I have to cover myself here by pointing out that some very recent research hints that plants may respond to sounds. Not to music mind you, which is irrelevant for a plant, but to certain vibrations."
SOURCE
On the other hand, Darwin proposed a hypothesis that plants may have a "root brain" that controls various aspects of the plants behavior.
HERE is a source for that information.
All in all, while this offers some fascinating insight on the wonders and complexities of how DNA works, none of it proves that plants have what we refer to as intelligence. (in my opinion)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Music And Plants - How To Use Music To Improve Plant Growth
The classic book The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird documents many scientific, statistically-significant studies done on the fascinating relationship between sound and music and plants.
The right sounds can produce tremendous improvements in growth, and the wrong sounds can do just the opposite. Plants are more aware of their surroundings than we think, probably much more so than us!
Here, I just want to give you a taste of what some researchers have observed with respect to plants and music, and sound and plants. This has direct implications for organic gardening.
Music And Plants
Colorado
Dorothy Retallack did many controlled greenhouse experiments with different genres of music and plants.
She found after 2 weeks, plants physically leaned 15 to 20 degrees towards a radio playing classical and jazz music, while they scramble to grow away from rock music and become sick. Marigolds “listening” to rock music died within 2 weeks, whereas those in the classical music room 6 feet away were flowering.
But by far the most noticeable positive reactions were to classical Indian music for plants. A researcher in India also had success with Indian music...
India
T.C. Singh, head of the department of botany at Annamalai University, did many experiments with Indian plants and music, with amazing results.
Eventually, he stimulated rice harvests that were from 25-60% higher than average, and nearly 50% higher for peanuts and tobacco. Experiments were done on many other plants and had “proven beyond any shadow of doubt that harmonic sound waves affect the growth, flowering, fruiting, and seed-yields of plants”.
Illinois
George Smith, skeptical botanist and agricultural researcher, planted corn and soybeans in separate greenhouses under controlled conditions and began to experiment with music and plants.
In one greenhouse, he played George Gershwin's “Rhapsody in Blue” 24 hours a day, producing thicker, greener plants that weighed 40% more for corn and 24% more for soy. He went on to produce amazing corn harvests using ear-splitting continuous notes at high and low pitches.
Sound And Plants
Ottawa
Two researchers at the University of Ottawa did trials with high-frequency vibrations in wheat. Plants responded best to a frequency of 5000 cycles a second. They were baffled and could not explain why audible sound had nearly doubled wheat harvests.
Canada
Peter Belton, researcher for Canada's Department of Agriculture, controlled the European corn-borer moth by broadcasting ultrasonic waves. 50% of the corn was damaged in the control plot, and only 5% in the plot with sound. The sound plot also had 60% fewer larvae and was 3” taller on average.
New York
George Milstein found that a continuous low hum at 3000 cycles per second accelerated the growth of most of his plants and even caused some of them to bloom six full months ahead of their normal schedule. On the other hand, he was quite adamant that music for plants couldn't possibly have an effect, as they "can't hear."
Conclusion
Of course, many people think this is all bologni, especially when it comes to plants responding to music. Scientists often think it is possible, but that it must all be happening purely because of “physics” and not because plants prefer Debussy to Dylan.
It is romantic to think of plants having a taste more for the “intellectual” music, and I strongly believe this relationship between plants and music is possible after all of my studies into the amazing world of plants, but in terms of music, I don’t know enough to argue one way or the other. Same goes for whether or not my plants know what I'm thinking.
Still, I’m now always more apt to listen to a sitar or string quartet over a stratocaster when I’m out pulling weeds in my organic garden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When Mythbusters tested this,
they isolated all the variables, leaving only 4 things to test and compare-
everything else was identical.
They tested affirmative, positive speech,
angry, insulting speech,
classical music,
and death-metal.
The best growth of the 4 was for the DEATH METAL.
The second was the classical music,
the third was the insulting speech.
(IIRC, the positive speech was still an improvement over silence.)
If any conclusion could be drawn from that, it would be that, in that experiment,
it was demonstrated that
the higher the VOLUME, the greater the enhancement of growth of plants,
and the lower the volume, the less the enhancement of growth of plants,
and the CONTENT meant NOTHING.
That's not the end of all experimentation, but they had both clear results
and success isolating the variables so it can't fairly be said that they could have
resulted from something else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Plants responded to sound. I can accept that. What I can't accept is that this is somehow proof that plants have intelligence and that apples have an IQ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Thanks WordWolf and wayside
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
The Great Basin bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva has live age 5,065 in White Mountains, California, United States. A tree this had a lot of time to learn new things
If plants did not have to talk with other they be board
What about Jesus Christ talking to that tree and causing the tree to die from its roots up when made that statement overnight
or you do not believe the truth anymore
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
While it's an interesting subject to discuss, the only part I see that might be related to doctrine is this:
"What about Jesus Christ talking to that tree and causing the tree to die from its roots up when made that statement overnight"
Or, was the discussion leading up to this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
Hi waysider
no I figure it would end up here so why begin
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Scientists have mapped the entirety of plants.
They know what all the "body" parts are.
They have named them all-and they know what all the parts CAN do,
and what all the parts DO.
There is no part of the plant that can house a nervous system-
let alone a functioning BRAIN. Plants lack the physical capacity
to think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The Rocky Mountains have had a lot more-but stone doesn't think.
The rocks would be more bored- if either had the capacity to think.
Algae doesn't think, fungus doesn't think, plants don't think.
They are programmed to automatically respond certain ways to certain stimuli.
They can't "decide to do otherwise." That's why we have the field of study
called "agriculture." Even millenia ago, people had the capacity to observe
plants and change certain things to direct their responses, or even to direct
their programming. (Modern corn is a LOT more food-rich than that of millenia
ago, before people began cultivating it.)
Rocks and plants can't think, so they can't be bored.
What about it?
A MIRACLE breaks the rules. There's no "logical" reason for any miracle.
A man walking on normal water, the loaves and fishes, those disregarded the
normal, expected results of dealing with water or food. But a miracle is
another thing. Jesus also said that the stones would cry out if the people
remained silent. That doesn't mean that stones were aware and listening
that whole time, or had ears to listen WITH or mouths to reply with.
A mountain may have "mountaineers" but it lacks "mountain ears" to use
when hearing it should get up and jump into the sea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Trees can't become bored but they can become board.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Maybe year2027 thinks in the future both computer hardware and software can be placed inside trees and even apples, while turning them into robots.
I hope he at least sees that trees would have a difficult time moving and walking. 
However, when he first mentioned apple here perhaps he was referring to an apple computer.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
hi WordWolf, waysider, and Mark Sanguinetti
Columbus and the Flat Earth Myth
Oct 12, 2009 by Gary DeMar
Each October, Christopher Columbus is hammered for his voyages of exploitation of native peoples, and Christians are ridiculed for once opposing the forward thinking Columbus and his rejection of the flat earth mythology held by the medieval church. Is any of it true? I’ll leave the question of exploitation to be answered by others, but the flat earth issue is easily answered. In the eleven-volume Our Wonder World, first published in 1914, the editors offered the following undocumented claims: “All the ancient peoples thought the earth was flat, or, if not perfectly flat, a great slightly curving surface,” and “Columbus was trying to convince people that the earth was round."
Even the Encyclopedia Britannica perpetuated the myth of a round-earth solution for Columbus’s voyages as late as 1961: “Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked its edge. Today we know better.” The people knew better in Columbus’s day. A 1983 textbook for fifth-graders reported that Columbus “felt he would eventually reach the Indies in the East. Many Europeans still believed that the world was flat. Columbus, they thought, would fall off the earth.”[2] A 1982 text for eighth-graders said that Europeans “believed . . . that a ship could sail out to sea just so far before it fell off the edge of the sea. . . . The people of Europe a thousand years ago knew little about the world.”
Some parts of world believe it was flat was flat in 1960
I believe dust has a brain too
I have not the right to believe as I believe please tell me?
I am smarter than all of in some things but in way you are than me
We all our strong points and we all weak points in our life
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.