Yet no scientists study the particular workings of viruses in any discipline outside of biology. Geology won't help you understand how a virus actually evolves though it does tell you about rocks. That's somewhat of a bright line in itself.
The study of viruses can be approached from chemistry as well. Hence, the biochemist. Their (viruses) status as living, or not living, is debatable, ergo the line is not bright.
No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living. The terms biology and biochemistry are to all intents and purposes interchangeable. Biochemists study chemical transformations in living organisms. The bio part is the clue. By definition they are dealing with living things. The line is bright enough if you don't need it to be dim.
Do biochemists study prions? Yes. Are prions alive? No. Edit: and regarding this statement, "No. If you do that then it is equally debatable that the human status can be considered as living, or not living." That's silly. That's the kind of black and white thinking I get from my engineers.
Now you've decided for no reason to go from debatable to No, and without any longer involving scientists. That's what I mean. You seem to want to dim the light. But you would say black and white thinking, if you hadn't grasped the inevitable result from making the argument you did. Humans are fundamentally as everything else is, as far as biochemistry is concerned, chemical reaction. Living and non living can and are discerned in science. You want to create a controversy about what's living and what isn't just to say there is a point where distinction cannot be made when in all practical and essential scientific terms it is . Why?
You have even less background in this than I do. Scientists agree that prions are not alive. They debate whether viruses are alive. I do not want to create controversy, it already exists. Originally, my point could have been helpful to your general argument, since the very fine distinction between one type of molecule, and another, where one is considered mere chemical, and the other "alive", points to the possibility of "life from non-life". But, now you have your pride involved. Some people have to fit all reality neatly into a grid. Best stick to your calculator.
Go ahead post your proof. Show us proof of a pathway from non life to life. it will win you a nobel prize.
I think I know the answer to that one, but leave it to FT to answer. It is interesting, today's news and polls. It appears many Christians would prefer a Hindu to a Mormon, which is pretty weird imho.