Ahem, please don't insult my intelligence, I know what a virus is, and I know the requirements to be classified as life. If you knew something about biology you would know that I'm not the only person to believe that they exist in-between living and nonliving, nor am I the most experienced in biology. The theory that they exist in a grey area is not based on an assumption, but years of research by experienced biologists.

I was merely pointing out the obvious, if that insulted you then I apologies. If I knew something about biology I would know that they are regarded as non-living. Do you understand that going against a part of the characteristics that biologists use to classify a living organism, means that it is non-living? They have DNA like us, but that is not sufficient in calling them living. And if something is not living, it cannot be in between. Let my explanations elaborate on my point. I dare you to place your claim on an exam and see how well you go.

Viruses are capable of reproducing, individually? no, they need a host cell to inject their genetic material and cause the cell to manufacture virus parts, the parts are then assembled and replicated until the cell can on longer contain them and ruptures.

It REQUIRES a host cell to reproduce, hence it does not reproduce independently. It cannot produce via sexual or asexual reproduction without hijacking a cell, and would perish without a host. It cannot reproduce alone like a bacteria, or with a mate like humans. Your explanation of how viruses are made is useless as it does not even support your argument. You are just explaining a process.

Obtain and use energy, a virus itself doesn't need food or energy because it is not a cell, instead it provides that energy to the host cell in order to keep that cell capable of reproducing copies of itself.

Hence my point. They cannot undergo cellular respiration due to the lack of mitochondria (to clarify it is responsible for conversion of glucose into ATP) and produce or use energy. They force the host cell to use their own energy to make more viruses and do not use them themselves. Basically your explanation is proving my point. And again you are just explaining how things work not how I'm wrong.

Grow, develop, and die, when a virus injects its DNA into the host cell, the hosts functions are taken over and begin to replicate that DNA, and the other pieces that ultimately make up the whole virus, and while they do nothing inside of their protein shell, many scientists argue that viruses do their growing inside of the cell.

I would like to have more evidence then “scientists argue” that they grow on the inside.

React to the environment, you are wrong here as well, viruses do react to the environment. Viruses are constantly evolving so that they can better increase their chances of survival (The need for survival also travels back to the last point, proving that viruses do indeed die) and adapt to the environment. This is why it's so hard to "Cure" a virus, because it is constantly changing it's genetic make-up. Like bacteria, they evolve through genetic mutations due to rapid reproduction (There's another one).

Viruses are programmed to change their surface regularly which confuses our immune system. Our immunoglobulins are unable to recognize the antigen (virus) and hence our immune system will be compromised. So essentially it will be identified as a new virus every time This is not a response to stimuli, it is a part of their program.

If you want to argue with years of research then be my guest.

Clearly you haven’t done much research on the years of research.

You know, back in the early days if someone said that earth revolved around the sun, man would fly, earth was round etc then they would be mocked and laughed at. But it happened. And now saying Zombies are just impossible may seem legit, but we don't know what the future holds. Lets not forget that our 'present' will be a 'past' in future. And its quite possible that a zombie apocalypse might happen.

If we were to try to answer what will happen in the future we would get no where. The point of a debate is to identify the most logical argument, and considering that this is based on a fictional scenario, it should not even be in a debate.

Envoy: My examples were fictional scenerios until it happened.

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen.

Quote from Javelin

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen.

And still you love it.

Quote from atlantisgoose

Envoy: My examples were fictional scenerios until it happened.

And do you see the pointlessness in this so called "debate". We won't know what happens in the future, but logic and current facts suggests that is not plausible. Arguing about hypothetical's will go around in circles. If you have a debate about if something is "possible" why have one at all considering that you think anything is possible?

Quote from atlantisgoose

Lets not forget that our 'present' will be a 'past' in future. And its quite possible that a zombie apocalypse might happen.

Then present an argument for why you believe so that isn't just "anything's possible". That's not an acceptable debating position, that's a passive opinion that's impossible to defend or refute and just wastes everyone's time.

And shut up about viruses already. They have nothing to do with zombies, at all.

i think that the government keeps many things from us, i believe in the government conspiracy talk... I also believe that somewhere the government has already tried gene-splicing, or messing around with DNA, causing a zombie. I think its highly probable that there are already zombies, their just exiled away so we cant see em.
although this may seem weird and cliche its just how i think, other things that could happen were listed by captain cook.

Facts don't change. Belief changes.

If the "fact" that earth was flat doesn't change, then is it still a fact? People believed the earth was flat, considering it a fact. When it was found that the earth was round, they then changed the terms of the fact to what it is now.

Consider that last year I was five and a half feet, it was a fact that I was five and a half feet right? This year I'm six feet, the fact of my height changes. Am I wrong?

Ok, some facts such as your height can change. The shape of the world and its order in space, however, have not changed. If they said before Copernicus that it was a fact that the sun revolved around the earth then they were wrong. Really they shouldn't have said it was a fact at all because they had no evidence. Nothing is a fact until you can see that it is true. If something, such as the possibility of zombies, goes against established facts then it is impossible.

Quote from Obcidien

What are a few of the reasons that it is "Impossible"?

You don't get to claim something is true and then put the burden of proof on anyone who calls you out on it.

Quote from Zed

Ok, some facts such as your height can change. The shape of the world and its order in space, however, have not changed. If they said before Copernicus that it was a fact that the sun revolved around the earth then they were wrong. Really they shouldn't have said it was a fact at all because they had no evidence. Nothing is a fact until you can see that it is true. If something, such as the possibility of zombies, goes against established facts then it is impossible.

I agree, but what established facts say that it is impossible?