No I'm not attacking knowledge. I was actually trying to get at something here. Let me give you an example.<quoted text>
A battery does not have life. A car engine does not have life.
Unless you want to redefine life in a way that makes our current definitions utterly useless.
In that case, all you are doing is replacing the word "life" with the word "stuff."
Sure...batteries have stuff. Engines have stuff, just like turtles have stuff. So do eggs and ipods and tables. All these things...lots of stuff.
See? Suddenly you've made the word life as useless as the word stuff. Now we can't do anything with it.
When you play these silly word games, you remove the ability of science to understand the universe around us. Biology ceases to have meaning. That's why we call these kind of logical games "sophistry" or "pedantry." They result in an inability to understand the phenomena around us - they reduce our ability to produce new knowledge and are therefore damaging.
Build knowledge, don't attack it.
Atoms contain sub-particles that has kinetic energy. This energy is what holds the sub-atomic particles together. An atom of a tree builds up when its atoms binds with other atoms and form molecules that synthesizes. The tree life begins as it starts to grow. We cut the trunks to make wood. Did we kill the tree and ended its life? Yes and no. A wood doesn't have life but it once did before we utilized it for something else. But the wood still has the same properties and physical make up - the same molecules and atoms. It's just in another form. Everything in the universe is recycled.
If we define life beyond what we know in biology, we will understand how life came from non-life. The fact that energy has always existed, that is seeded in particles (the nucleus of an atom has nuclear energy), is proof that life started from the simplest form of matter.