[jwalsh07]

Come on now, I was nice enough the first time. Your suggestion that carbon was excluded from inorganic matter was wrong. I overlooked it in the interest of finding a test that falsifies abiogenesis as the source of life on Earth.

But I'll be a nice guy. You can define life as the consensus criteria cited by most scientists. Non life will be defined as matter not satisfying all those criteria. The criteria is yours to choose.

You claimed my claim is nonsense. Unless I see some attempt to falsify the proposition it will be evident who is steeped in nonsense.

[js1138]

But I'll be a nice guy. You can define life as the consensus criteria cited by most scientists.

I'm not aware of any consensus that would apply to first life. That is my point. I'm not playing games. The definition of life is not a settled issue.

Certainly self-replication is part of any definition, but no one knows exactly what a minimal self-replicator would look like. That is another aspect of my point.