Originally posted by inimalistAgain, I agree absolutely. And it should be noted that Richard Dawkins's credibility has not been injured by his suggestion that aliens created life on Earth.
as a further note:in the same book, Sagan describes an alien species who [b]use vehicular interstellar transport
as not being able to determine if it is the cars on earth that are alive or if they are vehicles.so, ya, Sagan was the man, but again, nothing in science is absolute and people can disagree on many things.
For instance, I believe science should be open to anything supernatural provided it can be empirically tested. Give me an experiment that will provide conclusive evidence for the existance of God and my thoughts are that it should be run. Scientists have their own personal philosophies which will absolutly effect the way they perform science, but the scientific method does not require any philosophical commitment, simply empirical evidence upon which predictions can be made and tested. [/B]
The term "supernatural" is a strange one. How should one define it?
Originally posted by inimalistNo apologies necessary. From the beginning, my point has only been that one must make assumptions when it comes to the origin (or alternatively, the eternal nature) of the universe.
i must have misinterpreted, appologies