: First, there is no basis for it to exist or not. From my perspective, there
: is zero reason to believe it does not exist. Create life from 100%
: non-life, and you will establish that life can be created. There is no
: begging the question. Your axiom is that the "spark of life"
: does not exist, therefore burden of proof is on those who say it does, to
: change your mind. My axiom is that the "spark of life" does
: exist, therefore burden of proof is on those who say it doesn't.
: Definitions and conditions and requirements for "proof" of
: either stance is a much deeper conversation.

Oh shit, you really don't understand how burden of proof works.

There is a reason why a court has to prove you are guilty instead of you having to prove that you are not guilty.

I have explained this to you before but you are obviously not getting it.

There are an infinite number of vaguely defined propositions that can be made. If we were forced to accept them all unless we could demonstrate that they were absolutely wrong then we would be forced to believe that the moon was made of green cheese - that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster - that unicorns exist. The list would be endless.

Your vital spark is not well defined and you have given no reason to believe it exists - you have given no mechanism that explains how it operates or the limits of what it can or can not do.

So we can ignore your vital spark idea until you do the work. Demonstrate that it exists. Show us how it works. Show us how you know that it exists and how it operates. Explain why we even need the concept. What does it do that chemistry doesn't do?

It is not up to me to disprove leprechauns and I don't have to concede that they exist just because someone tells me that he believes in them. You can't say that it is up to me to disprove leprechauns.