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.
EVOLUTION is a demonstrably changable theory: proposed, written, re-written, organized by committee, translated, re-translated, re-organized, re-written, and re-organized again by the minds of men.
:-)
Wildly inaccurate.
Zit was clearly talking about the fact that the "all the matter in the rest of the universe" point has nothing to do with the concept of Heliocentrism, which is what I'm saying too.
"Heliocentrists" know that to be a perfect equation, you'd need to account for every molecule in the universe.
They also know that once you've done this, the mass of the Sun is the central dominant issue in determining the behavior of bodies in this solar system.
Which there is ample evidence for . . . as you seem intent on forgetting to reply to!
Ah, yes -- you mean that the earth doesn't orbit the sun, the earth and sun orbit the common center of mass, yes.
:-)
And the Milky Way is rotating around a galactic center, also, if I remember correctl.
And, these rotations are so small as to not necessary to be considered when RadioAstronomer makes orbital calculations.
Would that be a correct statement?
On the other hand, the Bible is a demonstrably fallible book; written, re-written, organized by committee, translated, re-translated, re-organized, re-written, and re-organized again by the feeble hands of men.
If you want to place a higher value on the words of men than the work of God, that is your choice, but I call you a fool for doing so.
I find it very ironic that in your post you have completely left out the concept of the Word of God.
I s'pose it depends on the accuracy required. I don't really know what he does, you'd have to ask him.
If you want to be 100% accurate, you'd have to include them. But I would imagine that the effect is so small that it might not be relevant to most real calculations you'd need to do.
Fascinating, thanks for the details!
And can I assume that this "Great Attractor" is Catherine Zeta-Jones?
:-)
^ ^
0 0
-
Works for me!!!
I do take into account galactic rotation and other motions, just by the fact the stars are "drifting" referenced to the sun/earth/moon.
Ah, really?
Thanks, I didn't know that.
You should look up the history of the Bible. 49th is quite correct. There are no original copies of the Gospels. Some of the Gospels appear to have evolved from an older version that no longer exists. There was a selection process to determine what scripture was canon and what wasn't. There were many different sects of Christianity in the first few centuries A.D. and the Catholic church did the first major editing. In the subsequent centuries, there have been innumberable translations of both the Old and New testaments, each with its own spin. Like the King James version, which were translated to give political spin for political purposes of that time. You even have it going on today with political revisions such as changing the Son of God to the Child of God (gender neutral version). And on top of that, modern translations lack the cultural and slang contexts from the time when the oldest existing documents were written. Someone reading the parables Jesus used gets a very different meaning than a listener from 2000 years ago.
Are you contending that the "word" of God is confined between the covers of an ancient manuscript?
Zit was making the claim and I was clearly correcting the error of his claim and showing 'all the matter in the rest of the universe' has everything to do with geocentrism and that heliocentrists always ignore it.
You can't rationally claim that the curvature from universal gravitation is too small and then ignore the fact that the universal displacement is equally small. That is a demonstration of incredibly poor critical thinking skills.
The heliocentric choice to ignore the effect of the rest of the universe is a philosophical choice, not one driven by science.
"They also know that once you've done this, the mass of the Sun is the central dominant issue in determining the behavior of bodies in this solar system."
Only true if you make a philosophical choice unsupported by science that you can ignore the rest of the universe. Heliocentrists always do this because it's the only their model can work and geocentrists never do because there is no scientific reason to do so.
"Which there is ample evidence for . . . as you seem intent on forgetting to reply to!"
Not forgetting at all. It must be evidence uniquely supporting one model over the other before it has any relevance. This is something you do not have and seem intent on forgetting to reply to.
You are confused between the calculated prediction of a model and the lack of experimental evidence to support it.
Elsi,
doc is using an old strawman argument that clearly original documents are required to prove inspiration, which is not the case at all.
You may be interested in the work of Dr. Ivan Panin. (easy google)
He did research on numerical patterns in the Biblical text and made discoveries that point to a single set of texts as the inspired basis for the Old and New Testaments.
Those texts would be the Received Hebrew Text and the Westcott and Hort text. They are the basis of the KJV version, which is the only 'modern' version to use these texts. The rest all use Alexandrian or other versions of the text and do not display the same beautiful patterns discovered by Dr. Ivan Panin.
This is the foundation of the KJV-only position and, while I do not agree that only the KJV translation can be used, I do agree that only the Received Hebrew Text and the Wetcott and Hort texts should be used as the single source of the inspired text.
doc makes the claim that it is impossible for God to communicate his Word uncorrupted. Of course, that merely denies the omnipotence of God, but what else is new?
I think that God has provided clear evidence of the inspired text through Dr Panin's work, but I also recognize that there will never be sufficient proof for those who are determined to undermine the authority of the Scriptures. Heb 11:6 tell us as much.
Siderial vs Mean Solar is a direct result of the Earth orbiting the Sun. I have to take that into account when I compute a satellite orbit (especially when I use a stellar reference for postion and attitude)
> Those texts would be the Received Hebrew Text and the
> Westcott and Hort text. They are the basis of the KJV
> version
The number of things you feel free to spout off about that you have absolutely NO understanding of is breathtakingly large.
Interesting aside, the only texts of Revelations that Erasmus had were incomplete. He made his Chapter 22 by translating the Latin manuscripts he had back into Greek. Thus the last chapter of Revelations in the King James Bible agrees with NO, NOT A SINGLE ONE, of the existing Greek manuscripts.
If you are going to claim that you take *sidereal* effects into consideration when calculating orbits, at least learn to spell the term correctly. I pointed that out to you before and you look like a fool claiming to consider the effect while misspelling it twice.
Unfortunately for you, *sidereal* time is a consideration for calculating orbits no matter which model you use (heliocentric or geocentric). *Sidereal* time must be invoked because the relative geometric motion between the earth and the sun is the same no matter which model you use. Ernst Mach proved that over 100 years ago. The difference between mean solar time and *sidereal* time has been known for over 2,000 years and is the same in either a heliocentric or a geocentric model. To imply otherwise is either completely dishonest or totally ignorant.
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.