Let me stop you this time.

: A trick of the english language? A bias in human cognition?
: You can't even begin to state what that separation is!
: The default is that there is no difference. You have to prove otherwise.

Then why the hell do we have terminology that explicitly distinguishes living matter from non-living matter? I can't believe that you could possibly insinuate that science has "proven" there is zero difference between biological organisms and non-biological organisms, when we have the terminology to identify the different organisms.
If you think that, then we absolutely must stop right here.

: Occam's razor, right? We posit that
: A: There is nothing special about 'living' matter*, it's just bloody unlikely
: to form spontaneously.
: B: There is a 'vital spark', something which separates non-living matter from
: living matter, but living matter can transmute non-living matter into
: living matter during the process of replication. Also, the vital spark is
: undetectable, but totally there.

A has not provided ANY explanation, and chalks it up entirely to "chance". It is a non-explanation. If you are content with that, then fine. I said that was fine. I am just not satisfied with that explanation in the slightest. Who cares if you think it's the "simplest" explanation. There's no reason I see to leave it at that. Occam's Razor doesn't dictate Truth, it only points to the most likely explanation being the simplest from a batch. And it may still be wrong.

: So, you are positing an extra agency (vital spark) that isn't required to
: explain anything at all. Simpler explanation is better, because this is
: SCIENCE!

I'm positing that there is an unknown factor that distinguishes, somehow, non-living matter from biological life. How can that possibly be seen as a fallible position, when there is NOTHING currently observed to disprove it, and NOTHING currently observed to prove the opposite, and everything we've seen to date supports that position? And a whole branch of science operates on the single important distinguishing factor.

Seriously, you are trying somehow to prove me wrong, or prove my foolishness, but you have no leg to stand on. Even if you believe me to be "unreasonable" for standing by the belief that biological life is fundamentally different than non-biological life, leave it at that. I'm not telling you you're wrong, nor am I somehow trying to prove you are mislead or wrong in any way shape or form. I'm trying to show you, in an entirely objective process, that there is no proof either way about the "nature of life" (or the existence of what you've called the "vital spark").

SCIENCE! It will continue, it will move forward, observing and experimenting and determining how and why things work the way they do. Perhaps in the future humanity will find a way to create Life from non-Life (which, by the way, through all this discussion, has still not yet been demonstrated); perhaps we won't. We don't know. Until that point, you're free to believe that there's no difference (I can't fathom how, but you seem to be able to find a way), just as I'm free to believe that there is.

Let's leave it at that. Please.