Given the 'scientific' stance on Intelligent Design, apparently science is incapable of distinguishing intelligence (agency) from natural process. If that is the case, then no matter the signal, it would be an aliens-of-the-gap inference if SETI ever claimed we did find something.

So, was that judge in Dover possibly wrong about his (well, it was spoon-fed to him, actually) definition of science? Or, has SETI entering the territory of religion? I'll leave it up to the wise folks here on Slashdot to decide. ;)

The problem isn't finding water... it's plentiful. The problem is more likely (if it has water) finding a planet with so little water as earth.
That said, the term being used in the media so much lately, 'earth like', is a pretty big stretch. It would be kind of like calling me 'Michael Jordan-like', as I'm male and taller than some. No doubt we'll eventually find (as challenging as it might seem) another planet about Earth's size, orbiting a sun similar to our own, about about the right distance. Then we'll have to start looking for the hundreds of other criteria necessary to start considering if life might be there, let alone advanced life.

Actually, I need to take back some of what I said above... one of my friends 'schooled' me a bit more on it (I was operating on a kind of old model).

There is really no 'cost per GB' of data... that is only a) a way one could sort of estimate things if one were to assume the network maxed out, or b) propaganda by the industry. In actuality, you have a network... which has X bandwidth and costs Y to implement and Z to maintain. Everyone pays for bandwidth (or a slice of the total). ISPs have 'peering' arrangements between one another, as it is mutually beneficial for them to be connected together. ISP A basically signs an agreement with ISP B to form a connection for their mutual benefit. Smaller ISPs peer with each other and become a 'network' worth peering with a larger ISP.

The problem with my model above, as he pointed out, is that it will ultimately not benefit everyone (even the ISPs). If you charge per/GB... then people will reduce what they do (at least all the budget minded ones) and less advancement of content will happen... needing less Internet... vicious circle. What most of these ISPs are really upset about, is not that people are watching too much Netflix (if Netflix didn't exist, a lot of people wouldn't buy their services), but that THEY aren't the ones collecting that fee Netflix is charging you.

Either way... as a point of comparison... if you lived in an urban area in Europe, you could probably get a fibre based 100 MB connection, with your phone, and TV all for about $45/mo. The US and Canada are so far behind this it is utterly ridiculous. So, while my proposal above would be a price break for North American users, it is still WAY too generous to the ISPs.

How so?

No, I think the mess started in Genesis 3.... and it wasn't God.

Sorry folks... I tried to interact with many of your points/posts... but I can't get to them all. Add to that, that while I was in the process of discussing this, Slashdot cut me off on my # of posts, so I think I need to give up on this thread.

If anyone wants to seriously** continue the discussion with me, you're welcome to contact me through my site @ TilledSoil.org (there is a form on the about page).

** - by seriously, I mean you've actually put some thought into this, and hopefully have done a bit of research on it too. (I mean... someone actually tried the Horus/Jesus comparison thing! Sheesh. That's about the intellectual level of having your PhD dissertation filled with National Enquirer references.)

I'm completely fine with this.... IF their pricing is based on some reasonable profit margin over their costs. The figure I've heard is around $0.03 / GB of data (or less is their cost), plus some reasonable monthly fee. So, let's say $10-20/mo is a reasonable monthly fee. Let's also say I use 100 GB of data, and that 100% profit on that data is a reasonable markup. My bill would be.... (on the high end)... $26. OK, so now I'll go a bit more crazy the next month and use 500 GB of data. My bill... $50. While I use NO WHERE NEAR 500 GB of data, my bill is higher than that $50 currently, and WAY over the $26 (and I typically don't even hit 100 GB). So, lets say someone uses 1 TB. The bill... $80.

Of course, then we could start asking what that $20/mo is being charged for (if all the costs are already included in the $0.03/GB). And if they are charging $20 before the data, they certainly don't need 100% markup on the data. Of course, if there were any real competition in the industry, these prices would work themselves out down into these kinds of prices and lower.

Hey, my claim is that I'm created in the image of God (a personal agent)... not the product of randomly bouncing atoms. I'd say the duty rests on the one making the impossible claim. We can argue about whether or not I can prove my view, but at least it is plausible.

"we inch ever so closer to that every day with each study on how the human brain functions"
The brain isn't the mind. The brain is like a RAM chip, it's the program I'm talking about.

"Logic itself cannot describe our entire being"
Logic exists apart from human beings... which essentially proves theism (ie: disproves atheism... which leaves theism).

"assertion that there's an afterlife," etc.
Why isn't that plausible?

"the assertion that a diety can and did directly interact with the world, but currently does not"
Who claims that?

"the fact that good things happen to bad people while bad things happen to good people"
Why would we not expect that... the Bible says this will be the case. (see Job for example)

"the fact that any "representative" does not hold any additional powers greater than a normal human being"
Not true.

"the fact that there exists multiple religions"
What does that have to do with it? We'd expect that given the Christian worldview.

"If said diety was indeed omnipotent, then there wouldn't be other religions at all"
Why?

"And the one I abhor the most: anti-intellectualism."
Me too.... note though, many of the smartest people that ever lived (and live today) are Christians... hmm.

"And what are the benefits?"
Oh, I don't know... science, hospitals, the education system, women's rights, abolition of slavery... ;) Me thinks you need a history course or two.

Or, maybe in some cases, he's letting us have our just deserts. Why do you think God owes you (or anyone) to step in and fix our mess? (That said, I actually think He did.)

Christianity and Christians are two different things. Christianity could be true if there weren't a single true Christian.

Very true. But unlike lightening... there can't be a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, free choice, reason, logic, or information. It would be a category error.
Let me make this a bit more simple.... naturalism (materialism) = determinism = this conversation isn't real. You and I are not conscious, freely thinking, reasoning, using logic, or typing out information. We're merely acting out some what some combination of atoms happened to produce.

"Strange loop. Self-referential pattern."
Atheism not only can't explain it, but it isn't possible for it to do so... that's the problem.

"So maybe you can't get to religion through logic."
Well, one could argue that you can't avoid religion BECAUSE of logic.

"Off the top of my head: TV preachers. Hucksters ..."
What do those have to do several of those have to do with Christianity?
Do you understand Biblical inerrancy? How about ID?
Would you like to discuss any one of them? I'm game.

How about the Big Bang or Christ's resurrection? (physical phenomena best explained by supernatural causes)

But, what does that have to do with being anti-religious? That we can better explain our world will only confirm or refute some segment of religious claims. If a religion is true, the advancement of science will strengthen it (as, I'd argue, is the case with Christianity).