Kroy, you said, “According to theology…”
Has theology actually ever said anything that can be demonstrated to be true?

Yes Bugsy and gz, to properly identify and define “life” including inchoate life forms for the purpose of abiogenenis discussions remains difficult.
However, the evolution theory is quite a different field than abiogenesis. The evolution theory is not influenced by any findings or outcome of abiogenesis.

Bugsy, Your comments got me thinking again...

Here's my refined statement in simple English:

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
The minimum criterion for a material life is that it must be an entity with a finite boundary, capable of accepting at least one input, capable of processing the input on its own accord (ie. it has standalone intelligence) to produce at least one output.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Note the words "minimum criterion".
By "standalone intelligence", I don't mean a life must be intelligent. No, all it requires is the ability to PROCESS an input ON ITS OWN ACCORD, (implying it has some independence)

Although a solar calculator meets the above "minimum criterion" for life, it is not a life-form due to obvious reasons.

But a virus quite likely satisfies the above "minimum criterion" for life.

Everything is covered off, I believe. Any comment?

Celivia,
On the contrary, I believe the evolution theory is very much dependent on abiogenesis. Inability to make the connection means the evolution theory will lead to nowhere.

But firstly, are we ageeable on GZ's "Minimum criterion for a material life"?

Bugsy,

Sorry I don’t speak much Latin. For those in a similar boat that don’t have the time to google around and find out I’ll take the liberty of providing the English.

after this, therefore because of this

Further, from my googling apparently the fallacy is in assuming that, because an event occurred after another event, the first event caused the second event. It applies when other factors that might apply are not considered and the sequence is the only thing considered.

Okay I’ve done my homework and now know what your learned saying means. But you might need to explain to me how it applies here. Yes I believe I am taking the timing as a big factor but I don’t believe it is the only factor.

I don’t believe that contributions of non-Christian origin are ignored or put down just because they don’t fall within ‘my’ definition of science if that is what you mean. Indeed the Greek learning I referred to in my most recent post was of non-Christian origin. Failing to come within the scope of a particular thing, namely science, doesn’t undermine the intellectual merit or accomplishment of something else. As positive as I am about science and its accomplishments there was life, learning, and achievement prior to science. It has been said that Rome was famed for its drains Greece for its brains yet the practices of the ancient Greek intellectual heavyweights don’t fall within my definition.

You are entitled to rely upon a different definition as many clearly do if you so choose and thereby take science back as far as you like. If so then we can just agree to disagree on the definition and my beliefs about the relationship with Christianity will be irrelevant to you. If Thales of Miletus is considered the father of science then Al-Biruni was certainly a scientist. If however Gallileo or someone of that time period was the father of science then the situation is different.

mjpb, in case you hadn't noticed about the only thing you have written that comes close to proper definition of science (or whatever definition that you are using) is:

'Science has been defined as a "method utilized in organised efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and correction through systematic observation" '.

The rest of your rhetoric seems to be confined to what you believe science isn't. Given this, why are not the contributions from ancient and mediaeval non-Christian examples counted as science? They fit your earlier definition. I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse, and that what you really mean is that Christian Europe gave rise to the kinds of science that arose in Christian Europe.

gz,

Inserting the words "minimum criterion" do nothing to change the problems with your definition. You will likely have to define 'process' as well, as it is a massively ambiguous word. Seriously, a dog food cannery would fit your definition also. It needs much more to be workable.

Bugsy: " I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse "

Yup. Got it in one.

"...a dog food cannery would fit your definition..."

Too funny :D

Bugsy,
There is no ambiguity with a dog food cannery in fact.
A criterion is just that, a criterion. To be a life-form, something MUST satisfies a minimum criterion. But the converse does not apply.
An analogy- A man is a human being but conversely a human being may not be a man.
Therefore there can be no mistake. A dog food cannery cannot be regarded a life-form simply on the basis that it meets that minimum criterion.

CJMorgan, (Whooop)...A good one...You obviously laughed too early, which indicates a level of ignorance, no doubt.
But not to worry, I will not ask you for ideas. Your infantile behaviour (due to ignorance) is embarassing enough, frankly.

Bugsy,
You are right "Process" is the next big problem. My thinking cap is still on and will deal with that in due course. But somehow I feel that the sanctity of such an important topic has been rudely violated.
Perhaps I would appreciate contributions from others along the same line, before throwing mine back in.
In the meantime I would welcome any realistic suggestion of a life-form that does not meet that minimum criterion.
Cheers and thanks for your patience.

It's nearly time to re-visit other threads...