: But how does one define a biological organism? How is it different than
: studying non-biological, inanimate, matter?

: No only the "first", but any. No has been able, as of today, to
: create a self-replicating molecule (that is, biological life, since there
: is plenty of work being put into creating artificial, non-biological life)
: from non-biological matter. It's not about when it "first"
: happened, it's that it has not happened since and hasn't been observed or
: repeated.

: But what's the distinction?

: Uh... not the same thing. Biology isn't just chemistry, for one, and vice
: versa, so neither is a subset of the other. They may intersect at the
: study of biology on a molecular level. You know, molecular biology.

: Again, what's the difference between a biological organism and a
: non-biological organism? Is there a difference? Or is there no difference?
: (I sincerely hope you don't agree with the latter; but if you agree with
: the former, then I rest my case and we both hold valid opinions about the
: nature of life, and we can be free to move along from this unending
: thread)

I suppose the only difference in biological matter versus non-biological is the presence of genes or DNA. That would distinguish it from your previous comparison to a rock.

I would still say that physics is probably the 'master' science and chemistry is a subset of physics and biology is a subset of chemistry.

What I mean by that is biology is the study of a very specific subset of chemical reactions found only in what is referred to as 'living' organisms', whereas what chemistry is in general is the remainder of chemical reactions outside the land of the living. But both of those disciplines ultimately relate back to physics.