I’m afraid the definition of organic has gotten wider with the years.That is what they teach us in chemistry yes, but we also consider organic anything “having properties associated with living organisms” to quote dictionary.com
That’s why I said from a scientific standpoint.
The definition of “living organisms” can potentially extend beyond the scope of our current knowledge, so scientists have had to make a much more stringent definition for the word. All organisms that we currently know about contain carbon, which is how the definition came about.
Otherwise, you get into semantics. What is “alive”?
But there was a previous idea of organism before that carbon theory was proved…
Yeah semantics…
Just like there was a previous argument for how the Sun orbitted the Earth.
The thing about science is that the more you discover, the more outdated old conventions become.
No.But in this case it’s difference.The term organic was first used to describe something.There is no right or wrong there.
The example I used is a bit extreme, but it still applies.
The term “organic” generally means anything dealing with “living” creatures. However, as we learn more about the universe, the definition of “living” becomes harder and harder to define.
Take, for instance, a virus. Last I heard (and it’s been over 4 years since I last studied biology, so pardon me if my knowledge is outdated), scientists still didn’t know whether or not they were considered to be alive. But they are made of organic compounds (containing carbon, etc.). How do you classify it, then?
Or take, for instance, a single protein. By itself, it isn’t alive. It can’t do anything. However, it is an essential part of a living organism. How do you classify that compound, then?
That’s just it.Society as a concept of “life” that doens’t correspond to the definitions created by scientists.
Life is the timeframe between birth and death,the timeframe when animals and plants are active…
Our idea is a bit different from that tho…
Society also used to think that some races were superior to others. Society isn’t always right. And even in society, it’s still argued at what point life begins (hence the endless debate in the US over abortion rights).
But, that’s just life as it pertains to entire organisms. What about the compounds that make up those organisms?
Bringing this thread back to its original discourse, can ruins be considered organic, even if they’re not really alive? If you made a building out of proteins, would it be organic?
It’s situations like that were “society’s” defitions of what is organic and what isn’t fall apart… which is why scientists need more clear cut definitions.
Fro me something alive is something that always had a purpose to fulfill.
Mineral don’t have such a purpose, but plants and animals sure do.It’s in their DNA.
Define “purpose.” Such high level definitions do nothing other than apply your own philosophies to something that requires much more stringent guidelines.
And minerals aren’t organic. That’s not the question here. The question is how to define organic. The one (and almost only) thing that all things considered organic share is carbon. It’s as simple as that.
ok, let me rephrase…
i think the ruins are made of the same molecular compounds as the pure-type monsters. i think they have genetic coding and perhaps a consciousness. i believe that a ruin, for the most part, should be considered another species of pure-type creature.
is there any unofficially official information on that, abadd?
[quote=“Abadd”]Define “purpose.” Such high level definitions do nothing other than apply your own philosophies to something that requires much more stringent guidelines.
And minerals aren’t organic. That’s not the question here. The question is how to define organic. The one (and almost only) thing that all things considered organic share is carbon. It’s as simple as that.[/quote]
Yes and organic is something associated with life.That’s my definition of life and I’m pretty happy with it actually.
No, the question here is what is organic.You say the one thing organic things share…
What are organic things.The crabon thing came afterwards…
Megatherium - Unfortunately, no, I don’t 
Gehn - Huh? What was your first statement a reply to? As for my use of the word “organic” in the second paragraph, I should have clarified that the one thing in common all things previously considered organic had in common was carbon.
You can’t argue that something with carbon compounds that isn’t alive isn’t organic. That’s just plain wrong. You may have a personal definition of what organic means to you, but that definition can’t be applied to anyone/anything else except your own perception of the world.
However, Megatherium has restated his claim/question, so it’s moot anyway.
It doens’t make sense to talk about organic thingsn everyday trying to mean this when the definition points to that tho…
You can refer to living organisms as organic, but you can’t limit the definition of organic to just those, if you get what I mean.
If I understand you correctly, you don’t necessarily talk about organic compounds and such in day-to-day conversations. The primary use of the word “organic” is used to refer to living things. Which is fine. As long as you understand that “organic” doesn’t only mean “living” things. That is definitely a part of the definition, but not the entire definition.
However, the question here was whether or not the ruins were organic, so that’s going beyond (IMO) the daily definition of what is organic (since we’re talking about a construct, created by the Ancients) that you have provided. Therefore it needed to be clarified that by “organic,” was it meant that the ruins were alive? Or that the ruins were made out of organic compounds?
Yeah that’s basically what I meant.And I’m pretty sure Megathedium (does thedium also mean in english what I think it does?if not there goes my attempt at trying to sound funny Megatherium :P) meant it as a thing that is alive too.
I mean definitions can be very stupid a concept sometimes.If everyone means it like “this” then why is it different “in the book”?In the end people won’t know…
Most people latch onto the most simplistic definition they can find, and as you’ve stated, that’s fine for day to day conversations. But, there is a need to be more specific with definitions when it comes to science. Science needs to be an exact practice, otherwise there’s no point.
So, definitions like this aren’t “stupid.” Quite the contrary. They are necessary and more correct… It’s just that most people don’t care.
Why not get a different name for it then?
I don’t consider them stupid in their essence it’s just that they are changing something that was “so” for hundreds of years.
But “something that is alive” is such a half-assed definition. We have absolutely no way of telling whether something is alive or not. Something that acts of its own volition? Then many robots fall under that description. Something that was created with a “purpose”? That’s pretty much everything in the entire world. The scientific definition of the word organic took the original notion of what was organic, and gave it specific parameters that had meaning. It didn’t completely change the meaning.
I dind’t say “created with/for a purpose” I said “always had a purpose”.
Something alive must have DNA.In that genetical evidence the purpose can be found.A robot doens’t have DNA.