Grim 28/05 27:09:09 p48 writes;

"Extropian, I disagree that space travel is inefficient; we do it all the time. I think -in the absence of 'warp drive'- what we will need to do is stop thinking of space ships as vehicles, and start thinking of them as permanent dwellings. Darwin will take care of the rest."

My memory fails me here, I'm afraid. I don't recall touching on the subject of space travel.

Though generally I agree with you, I think your Darwin reference is a little simplistic. By the time we do as you suggest I suggest that the mathematics and physiology of evolution by natural selection will have been advanced beyond all connection with Darwin. The term "natural selection" will bear an archaic reference in the lexicon.

"Such dwellings will need to be intelligently designed..."

A singularly perspicacious observation.

OLIVER..QUOTE,,<<For the believer in..>>>ANY THEORY..<<the Raven or the other>>..the believed..HOLD BELIEF..faith or trust

..in a theory

when the theory cannot be produced..reproduced/replicted..
or demon-strated..founded in fact..verified or explained
without the use of buzzwords/spin..or trickey of word

believer's holding faith in lables..
reveal the theory thus labled..<<are entities around which declartive sentences, even doctrine, made.>>

a decieved/..<<Beleiver can then indwell in that subjective passion/domain.>>.BE IT LABLED SCIENCE OR other...<<,in perpetual ignorance

those unable to fully apply the theory...into usefull aplication
..stand revealed to be believing a systemised belief/deception..
...not science..

by its fruits be it revealed

its maybe conveniant to ignore questions..
to postulate quotes of others..barely relivant to the topic...

but a question ignored..or remaining un-answerd...
thus stands as sufficient rebuttal...in lue of a faulsifyable alternative

claiming to explain a how..or a why..or a what..
by destractive discourse...it become clear..
the theory of evolution...has no reply..to any imponderables..relitive to this discourse

we can spout big words..in lue of fact...indefinatly
by their words/lack of works...
lack of fact..stands revealed

try replying
the previous questions

it aint half obvious..your avoiding them
and mearly trying to spin...a change of topic

till the sleeper's go back to sleep...
with thier faith...not the fact...reply your fact

Davidf,
The idea that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe is more assumption than observation. Certainly we haven’t looked everywhere.

Yet this is the sort of assumption behind scientific investigation. We search to describe the underlying norms that have been set into the fabric of the universe. At least, this is how it developed historically. Proceeding from the worldview of Christendom was the assumption that one God has placed his order through the universe. And we expect it is universal, reflecting the sovereignty of the one God. If we believed there were numerous gods squabbling, then we would not have imagined there to be stable order.

As such we can have confidence to describe the present order within the universe.

You ask me how I know what people think. That’s mostly pretty easy. Usually it’s assessed going by what they say or write.

In your post last Tuesday (25/5), in about a dozen sentences you crammed in eight references by name to the Tooth Fairy and one towards masturbation.

I think Banjo (overlooking some of his unpleasantness) best summed up this thread when he said the issue of whether there is a great Designer is pretty much the discussion of whether God exists. And this explains why the thread is so well frequented, so emotional, and so divergent in the topics covered.

For me, the issue is pretty simple. There is an apparent order in the universe. From the wonders of biology to the motion of planets (to David’s love of symbiotic relationships) and beyond, the greats of science have seen it and noted it. The first question is whether such order can be explained by the natural properties of energy and matter alone, or whether it can’t, and the order points us to non-material entity. Such a question is quite enormous in scope, and will most likely simmer until Judgement Day.

Yet, if we could limit ourselves to the question at the top of this page, is Intelligent Design as a movement dead and buried?

(continued …)

(… continued)

Is Intelligent Design as a movement dead and buried?

Bugsy argues (25/5) it is dead because he couldn’t find citations for it on the Web of Science. This is a bit like saying AFL football is dead because he didn’t find one reference to it while watching four weeks’ worth of World Cup matches from South Africa. Whether you find something or not has a lot to do with where you look.

Bugsy criticises ID proponents for writing books instead of having their articles published in his favorite journals.

I wonder if at the time of Copernicus we did a Google search through the standard scientific journals of the day whether heliocentricity would have come up favourably? Did Copernicus submit his journal articles for peer review before writing De Revolutionibus? Should Newton have written more articles rather than waste time writing his Principia? How many articles did Darwin submit before publishing Origin of Species?

My view is that Design science is growing rather than dying. In the 1950s and early 60s virtually no one openly questioned Darwin. By the seventies Morris and a few others were writing books. In the eighties in America there were a number of high profile creation / evolution debates on American campuses, and by then everyone was aware there was a stir of controversy. In the 90s, the ID movement started to get a little organised. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

If and when Darwin’s dubious edifice falls, we’ll thank these guys for opening up the cracks.

Dear Dan,

We have looked at great distances - light years away - and have apparently found no place where the laws of physics do not apply. We will never look every place, but that is the nature of science. We make a hypothesis and keep it as long as it is not contradicted and the evidence we have supports the hypothesis. Science is not as you defined it a search for truth. It is a search to find explanations for the behaviour of matter. These explanations are abandoned when it is evident they don't explain all the phenomena they should explain. If we find an area where the laws of physics we know do not apply we must then abandon the view that the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Then we will try to explain the anomoly.

So far the objections to evolution has been based on religious belief and not on facts which contradict evolution. Find evidence that contradicts evolution, and it will be abandoned as theories of phlogiston and ether have been.

Yes, I bring in the Tooth Fairy many times. There is no more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of the Tooth Fairy. I understand that it would bother a believer. If I could think of a kinder way to make the point I would do so.

No matter how many people believe in an entity that is no evidence for the existence of an entity. Belief in Zeus, Jupiter and Odin is now out of fashion. Some day belief in God, Allah and Jesus will be out of fashion. Changes in religious beliefs are as much a matter of fashion as the rise and fall in skirt hem lines.

in rebuttal of<<david f..writes/27/05..6:06:11pm..P46,

"Science deals with the ‘how’ questions...It does not deal with the ‘why’ questions..which are not answerable by the scientific method.">>lol

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/decadal/opag/WhitePaper2009LIS.pdf

Comparison..of the four giant planet satellite systems/leads to major questions..that should be addressed..in future exploration..of the outer solar system:

/How is the variation of density of the moons as a function of distance from the planet related to
accretion scenarios?
/Why
is Saturn's satellite system irregular with respect to density distribution and orbital characteristics
as compared to the jovian and uranian systems?
/Why
is the satellite density increasing with distance in the Uranus system?
/How did the present resonances form and what were the implications for the satellite's internal
energy budget and thermal evolution?
/Did resonances occur in the Uranus system in the past?
/What
caused the intense past or present activity of icy satellites Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus,
Tethys, Miranda, Ariel, Titania, and Triton? Why did, e.g., Callisto, Mimas, Rhea, Iapetus,
Umbriel, and Oberon remain almost completely inactive for most of their histories?
/What
role did tidal heating play for individual satellites?
/Which
satellites are completely dierentiated/partially dierentiated/undierentiated?
/Has internal melting of ice (globally, or locally) occurred within the satellites? Do some of the
satellites possess intrinsic or induced magnetic elds?
/What was the eect of events, e.g., the accretion or capture of a single very large satellite | e.g.
Titan in the Saturn system or Triton in the Neptune system | on the evolution of the rest of the
system consisting of mid-sized icy satellites?
/What are the roles of composition and formation environment in the thermal evolution of icy
satellites. What is the role of ammonia and other N and C containing volatiles?
/What is the role of short-lived radionuclides 60Fe and 26Al?
/Can D/H reveal anything about the presence of an early subnebula?
/What does relative impact coverage reveal about thermal evolution?

About local impactor ux?
About orbital migration of satellites or their host planets?

good to know
some know/...what the..true role of science is...eh?

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ei=PPkATIm7CoOycaXf9LIK&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=2&ved=0CFYQvwUoAQ&q=physics+questions+raised+saturn%27s+moons&spell=1