u got all of ur points right James. I am a scientist whom is also a sceptic of science. By no means telling if science does not have an answer, religion does. That is the case nowadays of most people.
On Nov 14, 11:58 am, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > Science in what scope is the key to this argument I think. We may > someday see the rise of our scientific prowess providing a pivotal > turningpoint in the fundamental nature of life in this universe. > Science or something like it may in fact be a fundamental tool of > evolution to the point where organisms and science become inseparable. > At this point we are understanding that if we wish for the lifeforms > we know to continue to exist science is the most effective and > probably only tool at our disposal to prevent the inevitable. > > The science I see is organic arising from rich diversity to meet the > challenge of understanding the universe and how it works. In this I > don't see a clear distinction between man and science but coevolution > and adaptation much as the cognitive capacity for language and > perception which preceded. That is our story (as I see it), there may > be others as well, perhaps that to progress synthesized through our > science is tied with the laws of this universe that organisms evolve > toward at their advantage perhaps there are species of life billions > of years older whose cognition spans many human lifespans- we may not > even see it in front of us due to our limited perceptions of time. > This could be happening at this very moment right here under our > noses, another layer of abstraction leading to the rise of yet greater > forms of life to which modern man will seem an insect. Hmm.. :) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Kuhan Chandru <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comments please > > athttp://cellrelics.com/2011/11/10/why-science-cant-define-life/
