AlphaOmegakid writes: I guess you can’t recognize the difference between someone’s “pet definition” and a scientific definition. Sad, sad, sad.
It is not up to science to provide definitions of word that arose in ordinary popular usage. That's for lexicographers to do, not for scientists to do.
One of the best definitions of "mathematics" is "that which mathematicians do". It has all of the problems that you complain about in defining life. It is, in reality, a recognition that mathematics is a broad subject, far too broad to allow precise definition.
AlphaOmegakid writes: My argument, so you understand clearly is that science does and has defined life.
Nice. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide it.
I guess you are referring to the article (actually, an essay) that you cited and quoted from in Message 43.
I'm sorry to be delivering the bad news, but that is not a definition of life. The author even says (in the cited article): "At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is there is no simple definition of life."
GDR writes: The earth evolved from the basic elements and life evolved to where we are today. That sure looks like directionality to me.
Suppose I go on a random walk, making a random choice at each step. You happen to be watching, though you are unaware that I am making random choices. If you describe my walk, you will very likely describe it as directional.Jesus was a liberal hippie
ICdesign writes: That paper copied on to the web-site is nothing but solid meat from start to finish.
If you think so, then start a thread on it.
All I see are a bunch of alleged facts, with no indication of what they even mean (as in what is being counted).
If there is somebody here actually presenting the argument, then there is a possibility that we can ask for clarification whenever we find missing details - and there is a lot of missing detail in that web page.