Who really thinks that .net is really going to mean anything at all now?

Remember that whole question as to whether fire is alive, because it exhibits all the traits of a living organism? Well, really it's a trick question that you pose to people just to see how good their critical thinking skills are--there are five criteria that need to be fulfilled before something can be considered alive, and fire fulfills four of them.

• reproduction: the ability to procreate
• consumption: the ability to absorb some form of raw material in order to create energy for itself
• growth: the ability to develop over time
• motion: the ability to move (and yes, vegetable organisms can move too)
• response to stimulus: the ability to sense their surroundings in some way, to determine danger etc

Fire fulfills all but the last, as do crystals I believe. Of course, if one were to use your definition of life, the ability to reproduce, you'd find a number of things that were suddenly and rather ludicrously alive. You could build a machine that can reproduce itself, for example.

I'm not religious, and my own ideas, while not exactly in conflict with creationism, do not exactly coincide either. I think it is possible that everything we see today could have evolved from a basic amino acid, which in turn spontaneously developed from a bunch of organic molecules, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest this is plausible. It also seems remarkable that such incredible diversity and complexity could develop in only a few billion years. However, I have not investigated the subject at length, and I would be a fool to suggest that either scenario (creation or evolution) is possible or impossible simply based on my general knowledge and what is personally convenient to me.

I do find it interesting, however, how both these theories are generally taught as statements of fact. It's disturbing to me that something which we cannot know with certainty, at least for the moment, is being explained to our children as a truth that should be taken for granted (although, of course, this is generally one of the things that defines a religion from a philosophy). To me, accepting either theory as anything more than such is something of a religious act. So the theory of evolution may not require worship, but the mindset that surrounds it is certainly indicative of the faith-based religious belief that the people who subscribe to it are often quick to criticise in their Christian rivals.

Slightly off-topic, I know. Mod me down if you will.