Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution at Knoxville Conference
KNOXVILLE – What is intelligent design and what scientific evidence supports it? Why is it so controversial? How does it differ from Darwin’s theory of evolution? Is there a purpose to the universe? What new scientific facts are turning evolutionary theories upside down? This one-day conference will answer these and other intriguing questions.
The emerging scientific theory of intelligent design is a hot topic at universities and research institutions around the world, and is now the focus of a day-long conference called Darwin vs. Design, coming to the Knoxville Convention Center on March 24th.
Join The New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists and experts at the Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explain the evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution and the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design Saturday, March 24th.
Featured speakers include:
-Lee Strobel, journalist and bestselling author of The Case for a Creator.
-Dr. Stephen Meyer, Director, Center for Science and Culture (CSC) at Discovery Institute, and co-editor of Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
-Dr. Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist and author of the bestselling book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, and CSC senior fellow
-Dr. Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet, and CSC senior fellow
Attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and philosophers whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thinking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics and our culture.
The conference is $55 for General Admission and $5 for Students and teachers (with valid school ID at time of admission). Advance purchase group rates are also available by contacting conferences@discovery.org. Purchase tickets online at www.ticketweb.com (use key word Darwin). For more information visit our website at www.darwinvsdesign.com.
Wait, you're arguing with -- heliocentrism?
Nah, not really, right?
See how easily you move from 'observed fact' into belief? So easy even a cave man could do it.
The truth is that there is no 'observed fact' uniquely supporting heliocentrism and you are totally unaware of that fact. Ever understand what coordinate systems (CS) in Einsteinian relativity actually means?
What else do you accept as 'fact' when there is no factual basis thereof?
Or -- it's so rare to find someone who isn't aware of the facts supporting the heliocentric dynamic that I'm rather surprised!
Gosh, if we're going to debate this, I have to know more about what you believe, what you disbelieve, and what you know/don't know.
Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is.
Do you dispute that fact? Should we debate that?
I suppose you're already done, since you've resorted to insults. Well, that's fine. Thanks for playing. =)
You might ask him about the phases of Venus...
Your first mistake is assuming that I am not aware of the arguments and beliefs surrounding the heliocentric vs geocentric positions.
Your second mistake is in not being able to provide an 'observed fact' that uniquely supports heliocentrism. But that's pretty standard for you guys. You can't distinguish between observed fact and belief.
"Ok, using telescopes to observe the motion of the planets, it becomes clear that the Earth is *not* the center of the system but the Sun is."
You move very easily from observed facts to beliefs without recognizing the difference, which is what I pointed out earlier. The observed fact that the planets orbit the sun does not mean that the earth orbiting the sun is also an 'observed fact'. Are you able to understand that?
If heliocentrism is a 'fact', Why did Einstein and Infield say in 'The Evolution of Physics, "(Einstein and Infeld, 1938, p. 212):
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
Sorry bud. All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun. Nothing more.
"Semantics are for wimps"
So is insistence on belief over observed facts. The least you could do is admit that there are no such 'observed facts' rather than trying to pretend the argument is over semantics.
Einstein was bright enough to realize that and so am I. What's up w/ you?
Junior, Junior, Junior...
The observed phases of Venus only mean that Venus and the sun exhibit relative motion. They certainly don't prove heliocentricity.
"All that proves is that the planets orbit the sun."
You have a different definition of Heliocentrism than this?
About The Conferences
Join journalist and New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists at Discovery Institute's Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explore the evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution and explain the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design.
Conference attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and experts whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thihnking of the past. Conference goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics, and our culture.
http://www.darwinvsdesign.com/
"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view."
First of all, you misrepresent me if you suggest that I claim that the sun was the exact center of the Universe, Galaxy or Solar System.
Then, you acknowledge that both Einstein and Hoyle recognize that there are no 'observed facts' that uniquely support heliocentism... but you choose to believe it anyway.
That's fine. You're certainly free to do that. Just don't criticize me if I choose an equal and opposite coordinate transformation than the one you have chosen.
Comprehender?
You have a different definition of Heliocentrism than this?
Actually, I misspoke. It doesn't even prove that, as both Einstein and Hoyle explain.
Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
Of course. That's part of the beauty of the non-inertial reference frames.
"The CS that is an inertial reference frame for our solar system describes the planets motion including the earth motion as ellipses around the sun (better: center of mass of the system)."
"You can use different points of view. No matter. But one is special. May we call this point of view "reality"?"
Hate to burst your bubble, but there isn't just *one* (i.e., heliocentric) special, non-inertial reference frame. A geocentric non-inertial reference frame is perfectly acceptable as the 'special' reference frame.
Don't you know that?
:-D
Um, do you know what that means?
It means that the system is a product of *all* bodies in the system, and that it doesn't matter what coordinate system you
Let's start with the simplest level:
When you look into a telescope, and watch the moon, say. You watch it go from horizon to horizon, "circling" the Earth. You see this happens every day, in a pattern. That is one bit of evidence supporting heliocentrism -- a larger body's gravity acting on the smaller body.
Then look at your telescope again, at Mars, say. You now observe the same behavior. This, then, supports the same dynamic gravity system. No matter what coordinate system you use, you will notice that the behavior can be explained by the same set of equations, based on the gravitation pull of the two objects in question.
Right?
That sounds a lot like baraminology. There is an interesting blog on that silliness here.
The theory of evolution could be disproved if the evidence showed that we either did not evolve from other life forms (for example, instantaneous creation, say, last Thursday), or the evidence showed that we were dropped here fully formed by space aliens or some such. Either of these scenarios would disprove the current theory of evolution.
The problem is, there is no convincing evidence for these, or any of hundreds of alternate scenarios.
"D has a lot going for it to explain why creatures of all types suddenly appear at different times in the fossil record...
"That sounds a lot like baraminology. "
How do you get baraminology from "suddenly appear"? And thanks for pointing me to a one-sided blog. Maybe I can scrounge up a one-sided creationist blog for you to read up on.
Wrong.
There are a number of observations that show we live in a heliocentric solar system. Why do you think "Siderial" is different than "Mean Solar"?
There are living examples of this. Just google "ring species" and you will see groups with increasing differences around a barrier, such as a mountain or other major landform, until the groups at the opposite ends cannot interbreed--the definition of a species. The interesting thing is, each adjacent group can interbreed, but the two endpoints cannot.
Ring species provide evidence for speciation (macro-evolution), and you can even see all of the intermediate steps!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.