>>13351363>reclassified as "living material"This is actually more or less what I meant.
I'm a comp sci/math guy BTW so I won't try competing with your chemistry/biology knowledge but my understanding of life in this context is allinged with Schrodinger's definition of matter which avoids decay into equillibrium.
So inert matter forming mocrobial life through some emergent (likely chemical?) process.
It most certainly does appear to be contextual, in fact I believe that we haven't even arrived at a consensus on defining life in this context, i.e. the debate regarding whether or not viruses are alive.
So going by these terms we seem to agree on, as someone who generally doesn't lean towards creationism, I can see it as, at the very least, proof of concept for creation - remembering what I said earlier about association fallacies.
>>13351401This sounds pretty spot on too.
