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.
> He didn't lie...
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you accept Elsie's position, then he lied like Osama bin Laden's prayer rug.
If he "spoke" the world into existence, then he "spoke" an infinite number of lies indicating the vast age of the universe and the earth.
"These are some of the "FACTS" that some people would rather not deal with."
Excellent post. The totally naturalistic evolutionary paradigm is so deeply entrenched in the "contempary" scientific community that anything counter to it is treated as a religion would treat a "heresy." This person at the Smithsonian is being treated as a "heretic" to be burned at the stake - figuratively. They want to deny him employment and destroy his reputation. Certainly sounds like persecution to me.
What is really sad is that if they did the same thing to someone for being a practicing homosexual. They would all be fined and fired, or forced to publically recant and attend "sensitivity" training. However, because he is merely "open" to publishing an intelligent design paper, he is persecuted with impunity.
The whole mess is a classic catch 22 set up by the established scientific community: "Your theory of intelligent design is not scientific because it isn't published for review,debate, etc., However, we won't allow a paper to be published on intelligent design because it isnt' scientific." Best "Catch 22" ever set up!
You argue with idiots.
If he "spoke" the world into existence, then he "spoke" an infinite number of lies indicating the vast age of the universe and the earth.
If your mom hands you a pie and says she just made it, but you don't believe her because it tastes too good, does that make her a liar? Certainly not. If you decide the evidence is pointed against your mom and believe her to be a liar, that says something about you. That is the whole point with God and creation. He is showing something about you in this as much as about Himself. Creation is awesome which tells us a ton of things about God. You don't believe him which tells us a lot about you.
"All of which brings up the point -- this is evidence of a helio-centric solar system . . ."
If you haven't been reading the other posts on this topic in the thread, you might want to go back and do that. We are way past this argument.
If you have read them and still think this is evidence, then there is nothing else that I can say that will be meaningful to you.
Do you even have a clue as to what I am talking about?
I know that it is difficult to distinguish between the *assumption* that the earth is accelerating with respect to the sun and the *assumption* that the sun is accelerating with respect to the earth. That was Einstein's point. There is no difference and therefore, no reason to scientifically prefer one model over the other.
"If you go all the way out to general relativity, there is the easily measured fact that the sun is a much, much larger distortion in the fabric of space-time than the earth."
General relativity is what Einstein was referring to when he and Infield said:
'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."
So, Einstein himself refutes your point. If you can't accept that, then there's nothing I can say that will change your mind either.
How odd. I can only assume that you are unfamiliar with the concept of irony.
As for your question in post 161 -- "What else do you accept as 'fact' when there is no factual basis thereof?" -- am I correct in assuming as well that you are unfamiliar with inductive and deductive reasoning?
Well, I read your other posts, and they didn't make sense. At one point you even specifically contradict yourself, and say something nonsensical like, "Observed evidence is not evidence". So I was hoping you'd discuss it with me, on the specifics, so we could avoid the language that seems to be confusing.
You observe the locations and movements of the sun and the earth. No matter what coordinate system you use, you notice that the movements seem to follow the two bodies rotating around the center of the mass of gravity of the two bodies. You then observere that due to the difference in mass, this center is in the Sun.
All observed, real data. All pointing to a specific gravitational system. A system in which the center of rotation is the Sun.
This is evidence, agreed?
Nooo..... Actually your posts are just a bit to strange for me to grasp your side of this.
OTOH, I have worked for the space program for almost 30 years and one of my jobs was designing orbits and orbital rendezvous. Thusly, I do knw what I am talking about.
Um, FRiend, that quote doesn't say what you seem to think it does . . . several folks have pointed out your error, yet you don't correct it.
:-D
No, it's coming from anyone with common sense. Do you really think you are some guru who has the ultimate answers to questions about the universe, but the entire industrialized world is oppressing your divine wisdom? And I mean a modern industrialized world that routinely uses the modern physics that you reject on semantic grounds. Why should you be taken seriously by professionals who successfully exploit what works in reality? I don't see you using your geocentric model to any extent except to get attention on these threads.
After giving this some more thought, perhaps the point you are missing is the heliocentrists always ignore the gravitational effects of the rest of the universe and geocentrists always include it.
When you appeal only to the gravatational 'pull' of the sun, you are by definition ignoring the gravitational effects of the rest of the universe.
In the geocentric universe, the stars are centered on the sun, not on the earth and the universe has an annual wobble offsetting the orbit of the sun around the earth.
I'm sure you can understand that the earth doesn't orbit the center of the sun, but the center of mass of the system as impacted by the other planets in the solar system. Geocentrists make the point that the rest of the solar system is not the only mass that must be accounted for, but the entire universe.
Since the solar system is basically a point when compared to the rest of the universe, the gravitational offset caused by the annual wobble of the universe with the stars centered on the sun is more than enough to shift the center of mass from the sun out to the earth.
This is basically what Einstein and Hoyle understood that modern heliocentrists do not.
"Well, you'll get an "error". A small one, less than 1/365. Is the "error" due angles or because our earth is orbiting around the sun?"
Your logic is in error.
Basically, your position is that in a heliocentric model, the universe applies a force to the pendulum that holds it steady while the earth rotates underneath it.
However, when you switch to a geocentric model, you assume that the universe no longer influences the pendulum.
I do not make that error, but recognize that the universe exerts the same force on the pendulum whether the model is heliocentric or geocentric.
Make sense to you?
"You still have problems with Einstein's point of view? Every coordinate system (CS) is valid. But not every CS makes sense. This is one difference between math and physics."
The problem is that your own thought process is not consistent. Not that my choice of CS is flawed.
So, did you use the center of the sun to compute earth orbits or the center of the earth?
I see that you continually fail to provide any arguments (other than appeal to ridicule) that uniquely support heliocentricity. That's because there are none. As I have demonstrated, both CS are equivalent.
My purpose in generating these threads is to show people that things they think are 'facts' are not really facts, but are beliefs. The lack of definitive evidence in favor of heliocentrism demonstrates that it is a belief, not a fact, and that can be a significant enlightenment for some people.
You are certainly free to make the philosophical decision that you prefer heliocentrism. Just don't pretend that it is 'scientific' or somehow more appropriate.
Your only appeal is the appeal to popularity.
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.
