Is an acorn an oak tree?

[Blastcat]

"If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree."

Post 471: Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:31 pm Re: Does he have a valid point?

Question for debate:
Is the above quote valid reasoning, and why?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

The same is true with the acorn. Place them in soil and add water. The recipe is the same for both. Since this is the C&A forum and not the S&R forum, the OP begs the questions as to why one would need to be a Christian to explain this and/or what it is the Christian supposed to explain.

My mistake, I suppose, as I am the poster of the OP. I was asking anyone, theist or not, what they thought of the logic involved. I'm not too sure what S&R stands for. If I should post there, I will.

I never intended that one need be a Christian in order to answer the question.
But I do beg everyone to answer it if they so choose.

Thanks for you consideration.

Now, I'm not too sure if you say that the quote is valid or not?
IS an acorn an oak tree?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by jgh7]

What is the real question for debate? What is acorn and oak tree analagous to?

My guess is zygote/embryo and human being. Is that right?

Edit: I voted no and I will answer why. An acorn is a seed. The second it sprouts it becomes an oak tree. I still have no clue as of now how this relates to anything of significance.

I missed your question about what was the real question in the OP.
Just to be very clear:

The very real question of the debate is about acorns and oaks.. are acorns the same as oak trees. If any analogy is to be derived from acorns and oaks, then the analogy should be at least logical in and of itself.

I am questioning people ( atheists or theists ) if the quote is logical. That is the real question here, and the only one that I asked. If you care to make a new thread about what an acorn and an oak tree might be analogous OF, be my guest.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 6 by Hamsaka]

"If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree."

Post 471: Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:31 pm Re: Does he have a valid point?

Question for debate:
Is the above quote valid reasoning, and why?

Although the acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, in its current state (as an acorn) it is not an oak tree.

Can I play the pedantic semantic angel's advocate for a sec here?

How could I ever deny you that pleasure ?

What is the cut off point between the state of an acorn and the state of an oak tree. Does that question make any sense?

Yes. When the object in question takes on the characteristics of an oak tree and no longer has (or can have) the characteristics of an acorn.

We have two separate states :

1) Acorn, and
2) Oak tree.

You say that in it's current state, the acorn isn't in the state of being an oak tree. That makes sense.

But you also say that the acorn has the POTENTIAL of being an oak tree. And as it grows, and changes state.. there is a cut off time. Or is there one?

What can you say about these transitions?

For starters, I'll stick with what I wrote above, regarding the acorn with its characteristics as compared to the oak, and where the object's characteristics resemble on or the other.

An example would be a child to an adult. We KNOW that children are not at all the same as adults. But.. when DOES a child "transform" into an adult?

The difference between a child and an adult is only nutrients, nurture and time. I don't see a child as analogous with an acorn, but I would regard an embryo and to some degree, a fetus, with an acorn; in that a transformation from one state to another non-overlapping state must occur in order for the 'object' to have the characteristics of a child or adult.

The acorn is literally different than an oak because it must transform states of being to become a tree. A tiny new oak shoot is a transformation of the acorn, and could be called an oak tree as it need only have nutrients and time to grow.

Agreed. We have different transitional states.

1) Flowering ( from mature tree )
2) Fruiting
3) Seed Dispersal
4) Germination
5) Shoot
6) Seedling - Sapling
7) Small tree
8) Mature tree - flowering

The chance of an acorn becoming a full oak tree is sometimes estimated at 1 in 10,000.

So, my question to you is:
Where along that line do we distinguish between the mere potential of a tree ( let's say acorn ) and an actual oak tree?

In my first post, I suggested that the oak tree shoot is the point at which that transformation has occurred, and it is no longer an acorn but an oak.

An oak tree shoot has roots, trunk and leaves. It's roots and chlorophyll are in full operation, albeit in limited fashion.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

The same is true with the acorn. Place them in soil and add water. The recipe is the same for both. Since this is the C&A forum and not the S&R forum, the OP begs the questions as to why one would need to be a Christian to explain this and/or what it is the Christian supposed to explain.

My mistake, I suppose, as I am the poster of the OP. I was asking anyone, theist or not, what they thought of the logic involved. I'm not too sure what S&R stands for. If I should post there, I will.

I never intended that one need be a Christian in order to answer the question.
But I do beg everyone to answer it if they so choose.

Thanks for you consideration.

Now, I'm not too sure if you say that the quote is valid or not?
IS an acorn an oak tree?

S&R is science and religion. If you are asking about the scientific nature of an acorn and an oak tree, I would think that would be the proper forum. However, if you wish Christians to explain how the differences between the to fit into their belief system, this would be the proper forum.

To your question as framed, in essence yes, an acorn is an oak. With regard to application, it depends on the application. Is an acorn a tree or a tree an acorn, no.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by Paprika]

"If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree."

Post 471: Fri Sep 11, 2015 2:31 pm Re: Does he have a valid point?

Question for debate:
Is the above quote valid reasoning, and why?

That post did not make the claim; rather it was quoting someone who made that statement; I had misplaced an opening quote tag.

Careless of me, I know, but humans err.

I want to apologize to Paprika, I mistakenly implied that the quote was from him, when it wasn't. It was some characterization of Paprika's position made by someone else, in the post number 470 of that thread.

I wont mention Clownboat's name here, for the sake of his privacy.

So, the quote in the OP isn't from Paprika at all.

I hope that clears up the confusion. I do invite Paprika to explain what his position actually is concerning the acorn and the oak tree for clarity. Again, I want to apologize to everyone and especially to Paprika for my mistake.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 14 by bluethread]

To your question as framed, in essence yes, an acorn is an oak. With regard to application, it depends on the application. Is an acorn a tree or a tree an acorn, no.

When you first say an acorn is "an oak", do you mean that it is an oak tree?
I want to be as clear as possible.

Someone might construe your reply to mean that an acorn a (oak ) tree in the first sentence, and not a tree ( of the genus oak ) in the next sentence.

So, just to be as clear as humanly possible, are you saying that an acorn is NOT an oak TREE?

Thank you.

[Dropship]

"If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree."
Question for debate:
Is the above quote valid reasoning, and why?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at, but I should imagine an acorn and an oak tree are completely different things, that's why they have completely different names?
Eventually the acorn grows into an oak tree.
Here's an analogy- when we die we change from material human beings into purely "spiritual beings", a bit like this chap in Star Trek-



"So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable...it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 15:42-50)
We could therefore regard our transformation into spiritual entities as being the final step of our personal evolution.

[bluethread]

So, just to be as clear as humanly possible, are you saying that an acorn is NOT an oak TREE?

Thank you.

Yes, but neither is an oak sprout, or even a sapling, if one is a carpenter. You seem to be arguing the use of specifications and adjectives as if they are definitive. They are defining, but not definitive. Is a fawn significantly different from a buck or a doe, just because we use special terms to indicate a difference. To a hunter there is a big difference, to a farmer, not so much.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 10 by Paprika]

I gather that 'oak tree' is supposed to denote a member of one of the oak species and not the mature state. So the question would then mean 'is an oak organism a member of one of the oak species?' and the answer is obviously yes.

Well, lucky for you, Paprika, you dont have to gather anything, you can just go right ahead and ask the poster of the OP as to what he meant by the question. And that's me.

So, let me answer what I meant by the question to help you along with your fact gathering:

The real question of the OP reads this way:

"If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree."

Question for debate:
Is the above quote valid reasoning, and why?

I am not MEANING to ask if an acorn is of the Genus Quercus, I know that it is. The MEANING of the question is :

Is an acorn a tree?

So, if you could weigh in on that, is an acorn a tree?
And if you could also weigh in on the actual question that is found in the OP. Is the comment quoted logically valid, and if so, why?

I would be more than passingly interested in your opinion.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 17 by Dropship]

"If an acorn is an oak tree organism, an acorn is therefore an oak tree."
Question for debate:
Is the above quote valid reasoning, and why?

Not sure I understand what you're getting at, but I should imagine an acorn and an oak tree are completely different things, that's why they have completely different names?
Eventually the acorn grows into an oak tree.
Here's an analogy- when we die we change from material human beings into purely "spiritual beings", a bit like this chap in Star Trek-

Thank you for your opinion about acorns and trees. I invite you to take the poll above.

Your analogy rests on unverified premises that you don't supply evidence for, so I will have to discount them as invalid and meaningless.