this is my last day posting in et

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Lol, I don't know commodity traders, I'll take your word for that!

I'm saying there is no bright line. It's easy to see the difference between widely separated entities like your examples, but not easy between closely placed entities right at the "cusp" of life. Last I heard, but this is years old, there is still no agreement on whether viruses are truly alive. But I do think prions are not considered living.

Point taken, but it still has no bearing on the fact that Darwin does not deal with origins of life which you said, 'does not sound right'.

If you want to deal with origin of species, evolutionary development of species, taxonomic group of organisms, or in other words, all known living things, then Darwin's evolution works brilliantly.
Everything else including the origin of life itself is nothing to do with that.

I'd suggest the line is made bright when not wearing creator designed sun shades .

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
you are a writer of fiction. you have not advised me about anything because you have been arguing with facts, with quotes and with science in all our discussions.

Quite true. I have been arguing with facts, with quotes and with science in all our discussions and it has not advised you.
That's exactly your problem in a nutshell.

Quote from jem:
So, lets nail down the issues so you can stop lying about what I say and focus on the facts.

1. do you now agree there is no proof that life evolved from non life?
yes or no.

No.
There is factual evidence that does help establish proof to whether life evolved from non life.

I realize putting those sort of mindless loaded questions is because you don’t really have a clue, and any actual facts as there may be could threaten your own religious pre-conclusions, so they are to be steered clear of at all costs.
Which leaves you just as ignorant as ever.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

...I'd suggest the line is made bright when not wearing creator designed sun shades .

Oh really. So, are viruses alive?

 

[Petsamo]

Quote from Ricter:
I see FT fooled Petsamo, too. Lol

I demonstrated Free Thinker is a psychopathic liar.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Petsamo:

I demonstrated Free Thinker is a psychopathic liar.

It was a ruse, and he fooled you.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Petsamo:

I demonstrated Free Thinker is a psychopathic liar.

The only thing you have demonstrated, time and again, is that you are a moron and a poster child for abortion.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Gabfly1:

The only thing you have demonstrated, time and again, is that you are a moron and a poster child for abortion.

Uh oh Gayfly is on the war path. Menstrual cramps again?

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Oh really. So, are viruses alive?

Did you not bother reading my explanation at all? Whether or not you think it's right or wrong your question above suggests you didn't even notice it.
If you consider life is functioning molecular biology that responds through replication to its environment as described by Darwin / evolution, then yes they are.

If you think life is only to do with things that breathe, then they won’t impress you as being living things. Don’t some people think plants aren’t living things either?

Where exactly was it you think the line is not so bright?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Did you not bother reading my explanation at all?
If you consider life is functioning molecular biology that responds through replication to its environment as described by Darwin / evolution, then yes they are.

If you think life is only to do with things that breathe, then they won’t impress you as being living things. Don’t some people think plants aren’t living things either?

Where exactly was it you think the line is not so bright?

We can infer the line is somewhere between a man and a rock. But the line is not bright, because when you're right next to it, at viruses for example, it's not clear enough to say whether they're truly alive or not. It's semantics, thus the line is not bright.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

We can infer the line is somewhere between a man and a rock. But the line is not bright, because when you're right next to it, at viruses for example, it's not clear enough to say whether they're truly alive or not. It's semantics, thus the line is not bright.

It's semantics only when you start messing with semantics otherwise they're fitting in the realms of biology ( you know...bios – life , ology as in the study of).
Of course it's clear and reasonable to say viruses are living things. They're biological. They fit the criteria.

You start messing with semantics by changing description to "are they truly alive" hippy nonsense, you can end up with wondering whether humans are truly alive.

Wanting to dim the line doesn't actually make it less bright.