Thursday, August 02, 2012

Fail Quote: Creationist explains why plants are not alive

| »
Henry Morris III (CEO, Institute for Creation Research)
Henry Morris III

Here’s Henry Morris III of the Institute for Creation Research, revealing just how dim these bulbs can get when they put the Bible before reality:

Obviously, animal and human life are different from plant life. In fact, the Bible uses the Hebrew word chay (life) and its derivatives 763 times in the Old Testament, never applying that term to plants or vegetation. No place in Scripture attributes chay to plants; only living creatures possess life.

Plants are indeed marvelous, beautiful, complex, and able to reproduce “after their kind,” but they are designed by the Creator to be a source of energy to maintain life. Plants are food—they are not alive.

So living things cannot be food. I suspect that revelation must make a lot of carnivores wonder just what the hell they’ve been eating all this time. And vegetation isn’t alive? Then how does it reproduce, if not through biological mechanisms that can only occur in living organisms? How does photosynthesis work in something that’s lifeless? Any answers to that in his book of fairy tales?

And somehow, it only gets better from there. Did you know that all living things can also move? (Which, if plants aren’t alive, must make tropism and especially rapid plant movement – think Venus Flytraps – particularly tricky to explain.) Or that all living things have blood? (Way to discriminate against 90% of life on Earth, dude.) Or that, of course, all living things have a soul? (So there must be a doggy heaven!) And naturally, all that comes together to prove how those doggone evolutionists are, like, totally wrong. Bet you didn’t know that, did ya, you fancy-pants naturalist with your science and stuff?

Well, I still don’t. But at least The Sensuous Curmudgeon does a nice job pointing and laughing at all the stupid. Go there and join in the hilarity. (Or despair at the fact that these whackjobs exist and are an actual force in the modern U.S. political machine. Either way.)

(via Rob F)