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 <ashkas...@gmail.com> 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 <nahuk8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Comments please athttp://cellrelics.com/2011/11/10/why-science-cant-define-life/
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário