Science is based on an honest appraisal of EVIDENCE. Faith demands we deny the evidence of our senses (or instruments).
Wrong. Science, no matter how "honest" you say it is, is often approached with bias. Faith is a response to unseen forces.
Science only deals with natural events not supernatural ones, thus, by definition, creationism is not scientific.
We haven't even explored or discovered all the forms of life on our own planet - I find the conclusion that there cannot be any other life forms in the Universe sort of a "mission accomplished" moment. A bit premature, to say the least.
We're all human, obviously. So, scientific method is designed to combat and correct the mistakes made by humans. BUT, faith IS bias in its purest form, without any method of correction for human frailty.
No, it's a response to forces that are not perceived in ANY WAY - not just unseen. If these forces of yours were detectable, there would be a way to test them. That's what makes it supernatural - it's outside of anything that can be detected.
@Durandal too What about Mimbari, Klingons, Centauri, Cardassians, Narn, Andorians, etc. Were they counted or ignored as not human? Moi Or The Home World?
Our best bet if extraterrestrials come is to attack them viciously. In earth history, every time a more advanced civilization encounters a less advanced civilization, the more aggressive the less advanced civilization is, the better the outcome. There are some vicious tribes in the Amazon (and one in Indonesia) that have been totally left alone. The peaceful tribes get exterminated and assimilated.
I agree that if there are other civilizations, we won't ever encounter them, primarily due to the speed of light, and the relativistic effects that occur as we approach it.
Chemistry is chemistry. Water and carbon have unique characteristics in terms of what they interact with. At least at close to STP, there are no other elements that would be suitable, just based on their chemistry. Research about how unique water is, and it's incredible properties. IMHO, the chemistry of water is the reason for life.
That would be a terrible mistake and probably an extinction event as anyone capable of getting here is instantly so far more advanced they would swat us like a pesky fly.
That seems quite possible to me, since we can see galaxies that are far enough away that the expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light. No human anything could reach those galaxies even if we achieved light speed.
Hardly likely to win if the ETs have interstellar travel technologies.. They can throw rocks at us to their heart;s(?) content. Besides unless they truly needed the real estate, what's the point of waging war on us? Okay maybe they need biomass, but just about every element we find valuable can be found in way greater abundance within our solar system AND for much of it you don't have to dick with a gravity well.
Nope, it's a historical thing. Read up about Sentinel Island in the Andaman chain. They have been left alone by the modern world. Read about some of the uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. The agressive tribes get left alone. The nice tribes get destroyed. Compare how the Apache live and the Pueblo. The Apaches have prime reservation land, the Pueblo, not so good. It's not an American thing, it's an educated view. Stephen Hawking has pretty much said the same thing: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/apr/30/stephen-hawking-right-aliens https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen-hawking-issues-warning-on-aliens
Just saying what happens whenever a less advanced civilization meets a more advanced civilization. The more aggressive the less advanced civilization is, the better the outcome for them.
That's the probable thing anyway, but if we fight, our chances are better. If we just give in, we will definitely be exterminated.
I suppose that is possibility but any aggression would be futility and may very well be enough to pester them into instantaneous elimination of the anthill.
The flaw in Hawking's reasoning is thus: The analogies he cites involve human societies that were much less technologically and morally developed and much less educated about the nature of other living things.. What we see today is not us leaving aggressive, indigenous tribes alone out of fear of them, but out of compassion. the more welcoming and less aggressive indigenous populations are not slaughtered, they are assimilated. This change in our Behavior has happened very quickly, due to scientific and moral enlightenment. If such a sea xhanhe can happen so rapidly for us , in light of this expansion of knowledge and capability, why would it not happen to an even greater degree in a more advanced civilization?
