There are actually two definitions that we can corner them with their alleged "science." The Britannica cites there are two main definitions of being "alive" there's physiological, which eating, metabolizing, excreting, breathing, moving, growing, reproducing, and responding to external stimuli are the criteria.
I am a bit more liberal with this definition in that I don't need this entire list, I'll let a couple pass so we don't need so much to be defined as being alive. But this is the definition of which I sit closest.
The one that they [christofascists] sit close to is biochemical, which is where the tumor argument comes well into play and is fair game in the discussion. The biochemical definition sees living organisms as systems that contain reproducible hereditary information coded in nucleic acid molecules and that metabolize by controlling the rate of chemical reactions using the proteinaceous catalysts known as enzymes.
I've recently been in a discussion where someone tried to merge the definition while claiming "science." However, I don't see how science would accept that as a valid argument as it not only omits characteristics out of each category, but merges definitions to create a new subjective definition what cannot be scientifically classified.
... Unless there's a legit definition I've not heard of. Other than that he said "I don't trust some committee of a bunch of people [they have their PhDs, all of them, mind you.] In contrast, he'd rather trust "the good book."
I am not Christian anymore, but I do know in so many words that one of God's messages were "Don't rely on me so heavily that you are beyond reason."
Which, many of these infidels are doing just that.
