This is not exactly true. The concept of living vs non-living is a construct based on the fact that after three and a half billion years, it's pretty easy to distinguish the forms and products of life. As some evolution critics have said, if it's a protein, it was manufactured by a living thing.
What we do not know is the history of early life, and we do not know if there is an easy dividing line between mere chemicals and things that are obviously living. We do know that it is possible to make self-replicating molecules that are not related to living things. Self-replication is one of the hallmarks of life, and it is not difficult to find in relatively simple molecules.
Your statement is essentially so far off point that it is not even wrong.
This is not exactly true. The concept of living vs non-living is a construct based on the fact that after three and a half billion years, it's pretty easy to distinguish the forms and products of life. As some evolution critics have said, if it's a protein, it was manufactured by a living thing.
So much nonsense in one paragraph. I stand by my statement. There was a point at which life began on this planet. Prior to that point there wasn't life, just matter. You are trying to argue (by redefining the term {life}) that life always existed, I believe you will find yourself in the minority. Next.
Your statement is essentially so far off point that it is not even wrong.
I'll leave that judgement to the audience at large. More to the point; I am still waiting for a working theory of evolution.
W.K.