: Wasp stings are made of zinc. Is that living zinc??? Is the phosphorus in our
: DNA a living metal?

: That vital spark idea is so quaint and medieval yet people, who should know
: better, still cling to it. I bet it's what Star Trek writers imagine the
: scanner are looking for when they scan for life signs.

And yet, that "Vital Spark" has not been recreated without any influence from life itself. So, it's your belief about what makes life tick versus mine. *shrug*
SCIENCE! ...please wait...

: Vital spark believers have to adopt the, 'you can't absolutely disprove it'
: position because there is no evidence or mechanism or observation to back
: up the idea.

I never said you can't "disprove" this "Vital Spark" thing. If you create Life from non-Life, then you've found whatever it is that Makes Life Work. That hasn't been found yet. That's all I ever said.
My belief is that this 'vital spark' will never be created; but if it is, one still used life (intelligence) to create it :P

: I can't absolutely disprove the VS idea just as I can't absolutely disprove
: the tooth fairy. Both ideas are equally pointless/productive.

Right. But if you observe that 1) the missing tooth was placed under a pillow at night and 2) that a quarter was found under the pillow in the morning, then anything else (you didn't observe) which you use to attempt to explain those observations are evidence in nature. And so people will need to choose which explanation of the observations is more believable to them. If you can find a video recording of an adult parent taking the tooth and replacing it with a coin during the night, most would consider that irrefutable evidence for the explanation that it was not a tooth fairy. Tooth fairy fanatics might accuse the video of being forged. yadda yadda. Point being - neither side arguing was there to observe it happening (presuming the parent isn't the defendant either way :P), so any explanation is a matter of plausibility and judgement. To tooth fairy fanatics, they won't be able to provide proof of tooth fairy activity, but they can easily interpret any evidence you provide to fit their pre-existing belief in the tooth fairy. Ultimately, by perception, neither side could prove their position, only provide evidence that anyone "in their right mind" would accept as the truth of the event.
This inability to prove something that happened in the past is precisely the basis for conspiracy theorists :P They weren't there, they didn't see the truth, therefore everything you show them is tainted by their perceived conspiracy and they'll always find a way to explain it all away; because in that context, trusting the testimony of a witness or validity of the presentation of interpreted evidence is key to believing something is true that one didn't observe in person. If they already believe you're lying, no evidence you present will convince them otherwise - because they weren't there.

: I imagine that there are two drivers behind the completely artificial cell
: projects: doing the work will teach us a lot and the knowledge and
: techniques will be useful. it will settle the debate and we can move on
: to fussing over other pointless nonsense - like, 'how do we KNOW that
: shoes can't think?'

"For all intents and purposes" - everything we've observed demonstrates that shoes can't think, therefore it is appropriate that we move forward with that understanding, considering that statement as fact - at least until another explanation better supports the results in our educated opinion, or it's demonstrated otherwise and falsified.
That, to me, is good science.

"Shoes don't think, because they don't!" isn't good science (as ridiculous as the statement sounds, which is the point; we believe it because everything we see and experience demonstrates it sufficiently for us to take the statement as truth)

: But after seeing the Indoctrination Theory posts on you tube I am convinced
: that some people don't care for evidence

That's unfortunate.
However, hopefully every scientists understands the difference (in concept) of evidence vs proof (even though the terms themselves are often used interchangeably). Evidence - presenting an observation with an explanation to support a theory; evidence is used to support a framework. But evidence itself isn't proof, and that's why when fighting in court submission of evidence is an effort to use an item or a testimony to support an argument, but it isn't proof because the opposition will be given a chance to find a way to show how said evidence actually supports their position too.
I hope everyone cares for evidence!
The fun part is when someone provides "proof" of a controversial statement, and nay-sayers will find a way to show that it's not the sole possible explanation, in a sense downgrading the 'proof' to mere evidence that was interpreted to support one side of the argument. If another explanation is supported by the evidence, then there are now two possible ways to explain the result, and both are equally 'plausible'. Someone has to make a judgement call.

A court doesn't necessarily determine 'truth', what actually happened, only decides what the law should consider the accepted explanation of the presented evidence. Many have been wrongly accused and wrongly punished precisely for this reason. And we have plenty of movies that play on evil lawyers finding a way to present a feasible explanation, whether true or not, that is supported by all submitted evidence, just to win the case. "Evidence" itself is not "Proof". We can only choose one side of an argument that we feel bits 'fits' with our own observations.

: Any thought that isn't 'giant robots fighting giant monsters is cool' is just
: a category error when watching that film. You know what you have signed up
: for when you buy the ticket.

Definitely. That's all it is, a big-ticket brainless action flick :)

: It is hard to avoid thinking, 'if they know where they appear and have
: advanced warning when they will appear: why can't they park an atomic mine
: over the fissure and detonate when the Kaiju emerges? But in the context
: of this movie those thoughts are just missing the point.

Because Environment! No nukes! No nukes! No nukes!