Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

I find it a rather feeble argument in that it assumes a burden of disproof.

I wasn't baiting you dammit. I was trolling

You fail to realize that the Earth has only had radio communication for about 100 years. The equipment we had 30 years ago wouldn't be able to pick up and understand the radio communication we are using today. Why would we assume any planet would use simple radio communication for a long period of time when humans aren't?

It amazes me that people involved in space can believe in a god, much less a specific god (Jesus). Afterall, earth, if not our entire galaxy, is a speck of dust in the perspective of the universe.

Moreover, they should be able to see that there is no evidence of intelligent design, but lots of evidence of evolution and other earthly changes that might be expected.

I don't think it's an argument at all. Russell merely played along with his fellow philosophers' usage of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic".

Just more evidence--which wasn't needed--that philosophy (modern philosophy, since the rise of empirical, naturalistic science) has become little more than a set of word games.

You'll get no argument on that from me.

Without going into a lot of circumstantial detail, by the 1820s, naval surgeons were responsible for recording what we would consider scientific data and collecting samples of "natural history." Charles Darwin was not what we would call the science officer of HMS Beagle. Captain Fitzroy addressed him as philosopher, rather ironically, both because Darwin was along to collect geological information (and therefore was a scientist, but the term was not in use then) and because Fitzroy's surgeon was always on his high horse about who was the naturalist aboard. It was only later in the 19th century that the term scientist came into use, and philosopher lost it's omnibus meaning.

Advocate said: "It amazes me that people involved in space can believe in a god, much less a specific god (Jesus). Afterall, earth, if not our entire galaxy, is a speck of dust in the perspective of the universe.
Moreover, they should be able to see that there is no evidence of intelligent design, but lots of evidence of evolution and other earthly changes that might be expected"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- Perhaps astronauts can sense God better than we can because they've been up there, face to face with the universe.
Jesus called God "The Creator", so the terms "God" and "Creator" are interchangeable.
Jesus said "I'm not of this world" so technically that makes him an alien.
Incidentally he's not God, he said so himself, he was solid flesh and blood.
The Bible is full of close encounters over thousands of years, so think "Alien Contact".

2- The earth may be a speck of dust, but that makes it a zillion times more important than the useless empty space that fills 99.999 percent of the universe..

3- Evolution always occurred due to natural selection and survival of the fittest,with God tweaking it along the way,but scientists still can't explain exactly how life began.
Think "Genesis Project"..
"God made the worlds.." (Heb 11:3 KJV)

Interestingly, in many of the books on Darwin, his position
of ships naturalist was taken as a fact, and as you said, that was incorrect.Actually, it was John Henslow, his geology mentor at Cambridge , advising George Peacock, another "Natural Philosopher", who had responsibilities to the Admiralty to actually place "Naturalists" on British ships.These two "greased the skids for DArwin"
In the case of the Beagle the Admiralty ws looking more for a companion for Capt Fitzroy, who was only 26 when he assumed command.
The Admiralty was delighted that Fitzroy would have "A well-bred gentleman " to be that companion and " relieve the isolation of command and share the captains table".
The "fix" was in for Darwin because PEacock nd Henslow conspired with the Admiralty "Hydrographer" (what they called their map making service during that age) PEacock was drinking buds with that guy, a CApt Francis Beaufort .
In fact, as part of the requirements of the sailing, Darwin's collections, (if he were the official naturalist of the voyage) would become the property of the Qdmiralty. Beaufort stated in the commission that
1Darwin was free to leave the voyage wherever he felt necessary (Fitzroy, on meeting him wasn't so sure that Drwin would even last the trip.
and

2Darwins collectibles were his own property so long as he gave them to a "worthy public body"

Actually Fitzroy had promised the post to a personal friend, and told Darwin that when they first met at Beauforts offices. Darwin then gave up on going and(I believe from reading Desmond) that the Admiralty asked Fitzroy to give up the invitation he made to a friend and consider Darwin instead .
SO Fitzroy and Darwin, nowofficially shipboard companions, didn't start out on a really good foot . Darwin ws actually allowed to provision the ship with geology crap and tools , as well as naturalists materials (boxes, paper, string, all for packing and shipping collections back to England)

AND to top it off, Darwin hired his own collector and servant, Sims Covington who would eventually actually do the collecting according to whatever Darwins had planned.

Meanwhile the ships surgeon Robt McCormack, the real naturalist, was apparently more attuned to navigation and "place settings at the captains table" rather than care about being a naturalist so most of the actual science was, indeed, left to Darwin by default (The exception was that ,McCormack was getting paid and Darwin hd to shell out about 500 quid for the "opportunity" to be part of the voyage.

Fitzroy actually took command of Beagle at the end of her first cruise, after her commander had committed suicide. (A messy and horrid business, he attempted to blow his brains out, and missed. He died after several days of what must have been horrible agony.) Although never officially recognized, officers of the expedition (three vessels) came to the conclusion that the solitude, the hard living and the brual climactic conditions had lead to the depression that lead Stokes to suicide. The station commander at Montevideo superceeded the young officer who had taken command of Beagle, and put his flag lieutenant, Fitzroy, an aristocrat, in command. Far more solicitude was shown to Fitzroy because of his connections (what was then called interest) and his social status than other officers in this kind of hard service were shown--and in fairness to Fitzroy, he was a meticulous cartographer with a flair for the work, and without giving anything of his social status away, got on well with the crews who sailed under him. Darwin was the beneficiary of his own interest, and it was thought to be a felicitous solution for both men.

By the end of the voyage, considerable strain had grown between the two men. It is actually amazing the Fitzroy withstood the strain which had lead his predecessor to suicide, given that he was subject to bouts of black depression himself. Perhaps Darwin's company really did help. But increasingly, Fitzroy saw that Darwin was dealing in a subject (geology) which could not be reconciled with church doctrine, which added to the strain between them. Fitzroy spoke out publicly against The Origin of Species. Some 30 years after the voyage, Fitzroy slit his own throat.

Interestingly, besides the messed up suicide of the first captain of the Beagle, "Pringle" Stokes, Fitzroy was also worried about commiting suicide just as his uncle Viscount Castelreagh had done in 1822. Fitzroy did have his own bouts of depression and psychosomatic disorders . He wound up doing the same move as his uncle(Maybe he was just trying to better his uncles time).
Desmond andMoores book give examples of many of the Dustups between Darwin and Fitzroy, as well as some of the public denunciations given by Fitzroy, later, after "Origins III" was published, at that time when he was an Admiral in charge of the Meteorological Services of the Admiralty.

1. 'Millions and millions' in our region is called trillions
2. Suppose these trillions comprise 'one trillion' (best case scenario for your excursive statement).
3. Do you know how many are the stars in the Milky Way - 400 BN
4. Do you know how much is 1 T divided by 400 BN: 2.5.
So your statement that 'the number of "Earthlike planets" in our galaxy is millions and millions' means that each star has at average 2.5 planets ... inhabitable ... at least ?!?
I am not going even to comment this.

Don't be an idiot. My use of "Millions and millions" was am homage to Carl Sagans sonorous voice, not an amount of planets
Seems that your losing here and now you are attacking my speech patterns.
I suppose that, should we consider the entire "infield" of the Universe, a trillion would actually be realistic.However, the point was that the number of earth like planets is a much higher estimation than we'd previously made,

You Creationists are certain that earth is unique wrt intelligent life. What if we show evidence of some kind of life on MArs or Europa or Gannymede? Perhaps life is more like a Galactic (and Universal)"infestation"

His English has always sucked, and his math is no better. Millions and millions just means millions. Millions of millions would be trillions, but that's not what you wrote. Like all too many people around here, if he didn't make sh*t up, he'd have nothing to talk about.

Remember when carl Sagn would deliver his "Billions and Billions" schtick?
I can never , in good conscience, comment on anyone elses "English and spelling. Im the worst offender in the room. So I just shut up.

Despite what people claim, i usually don't ridicule people for the quality of their writing, unless it's incoherent. I figure that when someone is peddling bullsh*t, all bets are off. Herald has consistently and willfully misunderstood or misrepresented what others here have written. As you noted a few posts ago, when he can't argue a refutation of what's been said to him, he just charges off on another tangent. This is one of those times, and, of course, the greater subject of how many planets there are and how many may or may not be inhabited is simply a diversion from his inability to make a case for his whacky theories.

We have noticed fm.

When are you going to defend your assertion that " Evolution IS NOT A STOCHASTIC PROCESS" and when are you going to explain why truth has an evolutionary advantage over faith?

And while you are at it why don't you care to take Russell's hint that there is a disconnect between the "mundane" aspects of science and the consideration of the transcendent.

That's incoherent because the terms "bullsh*t" and "whacky" signal that Setanta is not here to debate and it is a debate thread.

The use of "bullsh*t" also signifies a Christian sensibility.

so whats your excuse? Are you the A2K arbiter of style and substance? Or are you just some sorry little **** whose own participation herein has been limited to petty sniping and irrelevant insult?
I certainly don't think youre the arbiter