Sooo -- are viruses alive?

[ecco]

"The great British mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated—based on only one of the hundreds of parameters of the physical universe—that the probability of the emergence of a life-giving cosmos was 1 divided by 10, raised to the power 10, and again raised to the power of 123.

YOU are the result of 1 sperm in 500,000,000 fertilizing your mother's egg.
YOUR FATHER is the result of 1 sperm in 500,000,000 fertilizing his mother's egg.

Do the math for yourself. How many generations back to Noah?

You will find that the odds of YOU existing are as low as Penrose's odd for life.

 

[YoursTrue]

Religious people in general and Biblical literalists, in particular, see things in black and white. Good and Evil. Yes and No.

You state scientists can't decide if viruses are "alive" but you have ducked the many times people have asked you to define "alive" vs "not living".

I have? If scientists cannot come to a unanimous decision, why do you think I should?

 

[YoursTrue]

YOU are the result of 1 sperm in 500,000,000 fertilizing your mother's egg.
YOUR FATHER is the result of 1 sperm in 500,000,000 fertilizing his mother's egg.

Do the math for yourself. How many generations back to Noah?

You will find that the odds of YOU existing are as low as Penrose's odd for life.

Yes and so? But the odds are pretty strong that given a healthy sperm and egg meeting at the right time, something would come of it.

 

[ecco]

I have? If scientists cannot come to a unanimously decision, why do you think I should?

Uh, because you started a thread...

Are viruses alive?

You (now) admit that the word "alive" is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. Maybe you should have come to that realization before you started this thread. Since the word "alive" is meaningless, your question is meaningless.

 

[ecco]

YOU are the result of 1 sperm in 500,000,000 fertilizing your mother's egg.
YOUR FATHER is the result of 1 sperm in 500,000,000 fertilizing his mother's egg.

Do the math for yourself. How many generations back to Noah?

You will find that the odds of YOU existing are as low as Penrose's odd for life.

Yes and so? But the odds are pretty strong that given a healthy sperm and egg meeting at the right time, something would come of it.

Yes, something. Actually many somethings. About 7,900,000,000 just humans. But that's you missing the point altogether. I wasn't questioning what happens when sperm meets egg. I was trying to get you to see the "impossibility" of YOU existing since you tried to make an argument based on Penrose.

Do try to address it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Uh, because you started a thread...

That's why you think I should come to a decision about viruses being dead or alive?

You (now) admit that the word "alive" is meaningless from a scientific standpoint. Maybe you should have come to that realization before you started this thread. Since the word "alive" is meaningless, your question is meaningless.

hmmm, I wonder why you say the word 'alive' is meaningless, especially if scientists can't decide if viruses are alive. It's an interesting question, though. I think so, anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, something. Actually many somethings. About 7,900,000,000 just humans. But that's you missing the point altogether. I wasn't questioning what happens when sperm meets egg. I was trying to get you to see the "impossibility" of YOU existing since you tried to make an argument based on Penrose.

Do try to address it.

OK, I'll address it. I didn't make an argument based on Penrose, and life coming about, comparing it with the fabulous meeting of an apt sperm and egg, growing into a full size human being, has nothing to do with the odds of life coming about from -- whatever -- and then moving from whatever came first until present forms. Or you or me being formed. I simply quoted Penrose, not about you or me coming about (into existence), but as to even greater odds. To compare the odds of conception with the odds of Penrose's calculation of a life-giving universe is like comparing the odds of winning the lottery with nothing to give to the winner. But, as I have said, it's been an interesting discussion. So thanks for that.

 

[ecco]

That's why you think I should come to a decision about viruses being dead or alive?

No. I just think you should have come to your own conclusions regarding a subject that you started a thread on.

 

[ecco]

hmmm, I wonder why you say the word 'alive' is meaningless, especially if scientists can't decide if viruses are alive. It's an interesting question, though.

I don't understand why you are having so much difficulty with this. Since science cannot define "alive", the question "are viruses alive" is meaningless.

In any case, I refer you back to post#140 where I said...

The world is not 1's and 0's. Light is not red, or green, or blue. There are countless variations of light. There are countless gradations between red and blue.

Likewise, there are many gradations between an atom and an elephant.

There is no fine line demarking alive and not alive. If there were, then the word "alive" would be definable.

 

[ecco]

OK, I'll address it. I didn't make an argument based on Penrose, and life coming about, comparing it with the fabulous meeting of an apt sperm and egg, growing into a full size human being, has nothing to do with the odds of life coming about from -- whatever -- and then moving from whatever came first until present forms. Or you or me being formed. I simply quoted Penrose, not about you or me coming about (into existence), but as to even greater odds. To compare the odds of conception with the odds of Penrose's calculation of a life-giving universe is like comparing the odds of winning the lottery with nothing to give to the winner. But, as I have said, it's been an interesting discussion. So thanks for that.

That's a very rambling, nonsensical post.

I know why you quoted Penrose. You did it to try to bolster your argument that only your god could have created a life-giving universe because the odds against it happening naturally are just too great.

I showed that the odds against YOU existing are a least as long. I was not referring to odds gainst people existing. I was referring to odds against YOU existing. YOU. YOU would not exist if a different sperm had fertilized your mother's egg. Someone very much like YOU, perhaps. But not YOU. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Perhaps you don't want to see it because it would make you realize that long odds are not impossible odds. Then we could look at the mistakes Penrose makes in his "calculation".

 

[YoursTrue]

That's a very rambling, nonsensical post.

I know why you quoted Penrose. You did it to try to bolster your argument that only your god could have created a life-giving universe because the odds against it happening naturally are just too great.

I showed that the odds against YOU existing are a least as long. I was not referring to odds gainst people existing. I was referring to odds against YOU existing. YOU. YOU would not exist if a different sperm had fertilized your mother's egg. Someone very much like YOU, perhaps. But not YOU. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Perhaps you don't want to see it because it would make you realize that long odds are not impossible odds. Then we could look at the mistakes Penrose makes in his "calculation".

(whatever...)

 

[YoursTrue]

That's a very rambling, nonsensical post.

I know why you quoted Penrose. You did it to try to bolster your argument that only your god could have created a life-giving universe because the odds against it happening naturally are just too great.

I showed that the odds against YOU existing are a least as long. I was not referring to odds gainst people existing. I was referring to odds against YOU existing. YOU. YOU would not exist if a different sperm had fertilized your mother's egg. Someone very much like YOU, perhaps. But not YOU. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Perhaps you don't want to see it because it would make you realize that long odds are not impossible odds. Then we could look at the mistakes Penrose makes in his "calculation".

No point argument over possibilities or -- impossibilities and the odds of possibilities. I just thought Penrose's statement intereresting as to "possibilities." By the way, I realize that if I had one or two different parents, or different egg & sperm from that same couple, "I" would not be existing. Nevertheless let's go back to the origins of life and possibilities. And yes, evolution as in the theory would very simply not be possible IF -- life did not start somehow. YET -- no one has seen evolution -- no one has seen 'life' starting and then "evolution" happening. (Sorry, very sorry - or sowwy, however ...)

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand why you are having so much difficulty with this. Since science cannot define "alive", the question "are viruses alive" is meaningless.

In any case, I refer you back to post#140 where I said...


There is no fine line demarking alive and not alive. If there were, then the word "alive" would be definable.

Hey, I didn't bring it up about viruses being alive or not. Someone else did and I thought it was interesting.

 

[Polymath257]

I have? If scientists cannot come to a unanimous decision, why do you think I should?

The point is The real world doesn't always follow the nice, neat boxes we like to put it in. This is especially true in biology.

So, whether something is 'alive' or 'not alive' depends on how you define 'alive'. And different people define the concept in different ways, choosing which properties are most important for them in deciding if something is 'alive'.

The *reason* scientists cannot come to a unanimous decision is that they differ in their definitions. But, the vast majority would put viruses in the 'not alive' box for reasons given in this thread.

 

[tas8831]

I have? If scientists cannot come to a unanimous decision, why do you think I should?

What does the bible say?
Chapter and verse re: the existence of viruses, and whether or not they are alive.

 

[tas8831]

Hey, I didn't bring it up about viruses being alive or not. Someone else did and I thought it was interesting.

Sooo -- are viruses alive?
Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by YoursTrue, Apr 4, 2021.

 

[tas8831]

That's a very rambling, nonsensical post.

I know why you quoted Penrose. You did it to try to bolster your argument that only your god could have created a life-giving universe because the odds against it happening naturally are just too great.

I showed that the odds against YOU existing are a least as long. I was not referring to odds gainst people existing. I was referring to odds against YOU existing. YOU. YOU would not exist if a different sperm had fertilized your mother's egg. Someone very much like YOU, perhaps. But not YOU. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Perhaps you don't want to see it because it would make you realize that long odds are not impossible odds. Then we could look at the mistakes Penrose makes in his "calculation".

Math is hard.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does the bible say?
Chapter and verse re: the existence of viruses, and whether or not they are alive.

Right now I am not necessarily always using the Bible to make a point.

 

[YoursTrue]

Math is hard.

As a matter of fact, if I don't understand what a expert says, it seems some are saying I should just accept or believe them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sooo -- are viruses alive?
Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by YoursTrue, Apr 4, 2021.

I was referring to àn article I read. I didn't make the question up.