[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

However, the big difference is that unlike religion, science seeks quantifiable, verifiable evidence for what it believes in and rejects that which it can prove to be false (or, in reality, what it thinks is false).

If it is objective, independently verifiable, and internally self-consistent, then it is science … and 'belief' becomes redundant.
Science never calls for 'proof', thus it says nothing about 'true' or 'false'.
Proof does exist internally within mathematical axiom-based systems, which rigorously define the conditions for distinguishing 'true' and 'false', before operations commence.

Apart from pure mathematical systems, 'true/false' only has meaning in faith-based dogma. Those who speak in this sense, are coming religious/faith based dogma.

Originally Posted by renormalised

So, if pro life people are dreamers, then so are the "no others". Despite their "scientific" pontifications and justifications, they're just as much guilty of "faith" based opinions as anyone else. They have no proof of their assertions. So, in the final analysis, it's nothing more than a pointless argument based on supposition and ignorance. Neither side knows the real answer and they can't prove their point, definitively.

The only way to prove the point, either way, is to go out there and look for life...and not just within our own little corner of the cosmos.

Science never requires 'proof' … thus it says nothing about 'true' or 'false'. In general usage, these only have meaning in faith based dogma.

Frankly, if you don't recognise these fundamentals which distinguish science from religion, then you don't speak on behalf of, nor represent science in any way, shape or form.

Cheers