[betty boop]

When a molecular structure is no longer able to consume metabolic energy to maintain and replicate its structures, when instead its organized molecular structures begin to break down and give off energy, then it no longer fits the definition of life, does it?

It seems you are giving a description of a "closed system" here allmendream. But if living systems are open systems, as increasingly seems likely, then this "mechanistic" description is leaving out something vitally important (no pun intended). Plus your "model" simply takes life "for granted," assuming right up front that closed (e.g., inorganic) systems can be alive (or become alive) — which is begging the question, to put it mildly.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[allmendream]

What about consuming energy makes you think I am in ANY WAY talking about a closed system?

What do you think I am leaving out of my description of life?

The vital spark provided by God?

Cannot be determined by scientific analysis. You were asking a biologist for a definition of life however, not a theologian.

The definition I provided is perfectly adequate for a physical description of what life is. If you want to get all metaphysical about the subject, have at it, but nothing of utility will come from it.