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?

[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.

[Blastcat]

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?

1) It doesn't matter what it is analogous to. I just want to know how the statement makes sense, if it does at all.

2) If it is analogous, then it still has to make sense on it's own merits. I am not disputing what the analogy is supposed to represent. I am questioning the validity of the LOGIC the analogy uses.

3) You guess correctly.

[jgh7]

I would like to further relate this analogy to the zygote/embryo and human relation.

I view a sperm and an egg as two different types of acorn seed. The second they combine, I view it as the acorn seed sprouting. Thus, I view zygotes/embryos as human beings.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by jgh7]

I would like to further relate this analogy to the zygote/embryo and human relation.

I view a sperm and an egg as two different types of acorn seed. The second they combine, I view it as the acorn seed sprouting. Thus, I view zygotes/embryos as human beings.

I'm very happy that you do.
Your opinion on zygotes has nothing to do, however with the question in the OP.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Blastcat]

[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?

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?

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?

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 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?

[bluethread]

"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.

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.

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.

[Paprika]

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

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.