XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.religion.christian, alt.russian.z1   
   From: none@none.non   
      
   On Sep 18, 2025, Dawn Flood wrote   
   (Message-ID: <10aic7s$7eg0$4@dont-email.me>):   
      
   > 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”.   
      
   When there is no solid clue of the original chemical system. Then how do they   
   identify it?   
      
   Why create another life form who may not care about you and under the   
   principle of survival of the fittest deem humans as destroyers and unfit to   
   live, like the green earth people do for other animals.   
      
   It is a well known fact that we live in a destructive environment and that   
   everything dies. So why fight it?   
      
   Accept evolution as it seeks on its own for a better creature, one that is   
   worthy.   
      
   I am speaking from the standpoint of Darwinism and it is not belief.   
      
   After all, what made the first primordial soup, and with acid rain, CO2, etc,   
   to another primordial soup that revolves into the next evolution. Which may   
   churn out something better.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)