souls (doward)

Originally posted by Doward
*sigh* I guess you're just smarter than everyone else. All those dumb biologists, they should just read your posts and understand what dummys they are🙄

I haven't said anything against biologists. I am pointing out your errors.
You seem to believe that just because we cant decide whether my portable computer is a laptop or a netbook, then it shows some fundamental failure to understand portable computers.
'laptop', 'netbook', 'life', a given species, 'blue' are merely categories. If we have not defined exactly what features a given category entails then there will be times when we are unable to categorize something. This is absolutely no reflection whatsoever on our knowledge of the particular item in question.
Our failure to decide whether to call a virus 'alive' or 'dead' or 'inanimate' has nothing whatsoever to do with how well we know how a virus works.

Fundamentalists are an embarrasment to christianity, and you are an embarrasment to Rational thought.
I am afraid it is you that is showing signs of irrationality. Rather than discuss your position, you choose to resort to sarcasm.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I haven't said anything against biologists. I am pointing out your errors.
You seem to believe that just because we cant decide whether my portable computer is a laptop or a netbook, then it shows some fundamental failure to understand portable computers.
'laptop', 'netbook', 'life', a given species, 'blue' are merely categories. If we have not defined ...[text shortened]... rrationality. Rather than discuss your position, you choose to resort to sarcasm.

you continue to argue with a scientist who has told you your assumptions are wrong, you're simply being argumentative. I have provided ample argument and counter argument to show your position untenable, I don't feel I need to offer any further information other than show how ridiculous you have become.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. It has a wide range of meaning and has always done so historically and in most languages. I think it is often important that we be clear what we mean when we use it, or at least what sense we are using it in, but it is still a very useful and meaningful word.

[b]If someone was to get cryogenically frozen. Where does this mystical "life" go? ...[text shortened]... iousness with life.
What about bacteria that are frozen for millenia? Are they alive or dead?

[/b]Fair point. I suppose the confusion arises with a lot of people when they try to give a precise definition of "life" to fit in every situation, when it will vary considerably depending on the context (therefore does have meaning in those situations).

As for the bacteria in your example. Generally it is meaningless to say if it is alive or dead without context. You could say it isn't alive or dead (i.e. a form of limbo).

Originally posted by lausey
As for the bacteria in your example. Generally it is meaningless to say if it is alive or dead without context. You could say it isn't alive or dead (i.e. a form of limbo).

Well it simply comes back to how you define 'alive'. If you say life is a self replicating chemical reaction or complex of chemical reactions then you may need to specify in the definition what to call it when the reaction is put on hold. With a virus (which by some definitions is not 'alive'😉 one might call it 'viable' or 'non-viable' when it is in its dormant state (when there are no reactions going on) which can be for very long periods of time.

Originally posted by Doward
you continue to argue with a scientist who has told you your assumptions are wrong, you're simply being argumentative. I have provided ample argument and counter argument to show your position untenable, I don't feel I need to offer any further information other than show how ridiculous you have become.

I do seem to keep confusing you with Diophantus. However, I am not 'simply being argumentative'.
Your initial claim:

the spirit would be called that aprt of us that makes us alive, the spark of life (science still doesn't know how this happens).

is false and Diophantus's comments regarding abiogenesis or the definition of life in no way support your claim.
We know pretty well what makes us alive through science.