Thunder, If it is so simple, answer the question. If the boundary between life and nonlife does not mystify you then tell all us scientists where it is. You ask me to explain something but can't tell me what that something is. Dodge, dodge, dodge. You must dodge because you have no answer. Lets get away from a reasonably intelligent discussion to a very intelligent discussion. Let us put aside general terms and discuss science with scientific terms that have precise meanings. Lets go from a grammar school discussion to a little higher level. I doubt you can do that. You only want to deal in foggy generalities.
The wikipedia definition (Wikipedia is not a reliable source for scientific study but will do at times to help demonstrate a point.) comments that there is no unequivocal definition of life. Thanks, Walkingman, for supporting my position with your reference. It gives characteristics that help us try to decide if something is alive or not. How many of those characteristics must something have in order to be alive? Viruses do not have all of them, but you claim viruses are alive. Do you even know how viruses work?
How can you base your arguement on a boundary when you can not even tell where that boundary is? You can't. You have to use smoke and mirrors to try to confuse the discussion so that you appear to be right.
Somewhat parallel question: Why are the common computer infections called viruses and not bacteria? That may give you a clue as to how viruses work.
The longer you dialogue the more evident you make it that you do not understand science.
