XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/18/2025 8:13 PM, Oleg Smirnov wrote:   
   > JTEM,    
   >>  Oleg Smirnov wrote:   
   >   
   >>> How do we (living humans) distingwish between what is a   
   >>> living thing and what is a non-life? This question seems   
   >>> to be needed to be answered first before speculations on   
   >>> artificial creation of life from non-life.   
   >>   
   >> Already been done. Long ago.   
   >>   
   >> Yes the web now sucks. I thought I'd do the proverbial 30 second   
   >> Google search, post a URL, but we're in the post information age   
   >> now.   
   >>   
   >> Google A.I. said there are 5 criteria for life. And a little   
   >> further down stated there was seven...   
   >>   
   >> Here's NASA's take on it. Seeing how they allegedly are in an   
   >> active search for life, THIS is what they claim to be looking   
   >> for:   
   >>   
   >> https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/education/alp/characteristics-of-life/   
   >   
   > There's a great lot of sources where "characteristics" of   
   > life are being described / discussed, but they don't qualify   
   > as criteria for distinguishment.   
   >   
   > If there were such clear formalizable criteria then it'd be   
   > fundamentally possible to design a technical device that might   
   > accurately detect what is alive and what is not alive.   
   >   
   > One may suspect - on the second or third thought - there's an internal   
   > contradiction within the very idea, and it looks   
   > like it takes life to know life.   
   >   
   >>> Scientists (both falsifiers and bona fide scholars) from   
   >>> time to time claim they've managed to make something that   
   >>> seems to be alive, but it usually doesn't go much far.   
   >>   
   >> I'm not aware of anyone making a serious claim. For life.   
   >   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   >   
   >>> It is true it wouldn't prove abiogenesis, but as well it   
   >>> is not true it would prove that creationism is possible.   
   >>   
   >> It would be an actual example of creationism. You can't get better   
   >> "Proof" than that.   
   >>   
   >> If scientists managed to produce life from non life under laboratory   
   >> conditions, it would be intelligent beings creating life by design.   
   >   
   > It's rather a wishful sophistry.   
   >   
   >> Period.   
      
   It's right here:   
      
   https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/life-detection/about/   
      
   "A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)