!. Only intelligent replys.
2.No big bang replys.
LMAOROFL!!! OK PMJ, the jig is up. Why are you posting with another name, surely you know how much we all loved PMJ !!! LOL.
p.s. I thought you had finally figured out the "spell checker" !
Sagan and anyone who care toreply
by jw 111 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AuldSoul
We (collectively of course, I'm no biologist) know how it works...
...in that which we identify as life. We slapped a label on a subset of characteristics and called it "life". One of those characteristics is "carbon based," although I can find no rational reason to preclude other forms of life which are based in substance other than carbon. In this matter, it is as though science declared, "It is so because we say it is so, and for no other reason."
Therefore, if I encounter something which is real, exhibits many characteristics of life, but is obviously not carbon based, in what way am I out of line to label what I encounter as "life"?
If it is real and actually fits most of the criteria science applies to life, "metaphorically alive" automatically doesn't apply. 1) My experiences aren't in any way metaphorical except in the means by which I am restricted in communicating them. 2) The scientific explaination of life precludes much that is arguably alive and simultaneously classifies a zygote as life (which will thrill the pro-life crowd and enrage the pro-choice crowd), I disagree on both counts.
Phenomenal "life" is scientifically observed and described.
Well, I would enjoy reading your non-metaphorical, objective description of phenomenal life. Perhaps it might alter my perception of my experiences.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul