this is my last day posting in et

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

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 clear and reasonable to say viruses are living things. They're biological. They ...

It's clear to you, apparently. To other biologists besides yourself, it is not clear.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

It's clear to you, apparently. To other biologists besides yourself, it is not clear.

Yet no scientists study the particular workings of viruses in any discipline outside of biology. Geology won't help you understand how a virus actually evolves though it does tell you about rocks.
That's somewhat of a bright line in itself.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Yet no scientists study the particular workings of viruses in any discipline outside of biology. Geology won't help you understand how a virus actually evolves though it does tell you about rocks.
That's somewhat of a bright line in itself.

The study of viruses can be approached from chemistry as well. Hence, the biochemist. Their (viruses) status as living, or not living, is debatable, ergo the line is not bright.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

The study of viruses can be approached from chemistry as well. Hence, the biochemist. Their (viruses) status as living, or not living, is debatable, ergo the line is not bright.

No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living.

The terms biology and biochemistry are to all intents and purposes interchangeable. Biochemists study chemical transformations in living organisms. The bio part is the clue. By definition they are dealing with living things.
The line is bright enough if you don't need it to be dim.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living.

The terms biology and biochemistry are to all intents and purposes interchangeable. Biochemists study chemical transformations in living organisms. The bio part is the clue. By definition they are dealing with living things.
The line is bright enough if you don't need it to be dim.

Do biochemists study prions? Yes. Are prions alive? No.

Edit: and regarding this statement, "No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living." That's silly. That's the kind of black and white thinking I get from my engineers.

 

[stu]

Quote from Ricter:

Do biochemists study prions? Yes. Are prions alive? No.

Edit: and regarding this statement, "No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living." That's silly. That's the kind of black and white thinking I get from my engineers.

Now you've decided for no reason to go from debatable to No, and without any longer involving scientists.
That's what I mean. You seem to want to dim the light.


But you would say black and white thinking, if you hadn't grasped the inevitable result from making the argument you did. Humans are fundamentally as everything else is, as far as biochemistry is concerned, chemical reaction.

Living and non living can and are discerned in science. You want to create a controversy about what's living and what isn't just to say there is a point where distinction cannot be made when in all practical and essential scientific terms it is .
Why?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from stu:

Now you've decided for no reason to go from debatable to No, and without any longer involving scientists.
That's what I mean. You seem to want to dim the light.


But you would say black and white thinking, if you hadn't grasped the inevitable result from making the argument you did. Humans are fundamentally as everything else is, as far as biochemistry is concerned, chemical reaction.

Living and non living can and are discerned in science. You want to create a controversy about what's living and what isn't just to say there is a point where distinction cannot be made when in all practical and essential scientific terms it is .
Why?

You have even less background in this than I do. Scientists agree that prions are not alive. They debate whether viruses are alive. I do not want to create controversy, it already exists.

Originally, my point could have been helpful to your general argument, since the very fine distinction between one type of molecule, and another, where one is considered mere chemical, and the other "alive", points to the possibility of "life from non-life". But, now you have your pride involved.

Some people have to fit all reality neatly into a grid. Best stick to your calculator.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

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.

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.

Go ahead post your proof.
Show us proof of a pathway from non life to life.
it will win you a nobel prize.

 

[Petsamo]

What does a preacher of atheism care whether or not Christians will vote for a Mormon?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Petsamo:

What does a preacher of atheism care whether or not Christians will vote for a Mormon?

I think I know the answer to that one, but leave it to FT to answer.

It is interesting, today's news and polls. It appears many Christians would prefer a Hindu to a Mormon, which is pretty weird imho.