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.
Define 'not move at all'.
In relation to what?
Period.
"Geocentric" means the idea that the earth is fixed in it's place, perhaps by God, and does not move at all.
The rest of the universe moves around this stationary earth.
"Heliocentric" is the idea that due to the laws of gravity, the largest mass in a system like the solar system is the center of that system.
From Wikipedia: Modern Geocentrism
Modern geocentrism is a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious. Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe. Alternatively, in the case of Catholic geocentrists, scripture authoritatively interpreted by statements of Church Fathers and various Popes is used to justify their belief, even though this viewpoint is no longer endorsed by the Church itself.
Well, obviously the earth and the universe move in relation to each other, so when you say it does not move at all, that would depend on your philosophical choice of perspective and be indefensible scientifically.
Is that your goal?
I do agree that in order to be a heliocentrist, you have to ignore the rest of the universe while a geocentrist always takes the entire universe into consideration, if that's what you mean.
Period.
Ah.
Well there's your problem then. There already are a bunch of other folks who call themselves "geocentrists". They've been around for thousands of years.
And *they* mean that the Earth is fixed in place by God.
So when you say you're a geo-centrist . . . you're confusing folks here. You sound like you're defending the idea that the Earth is fixed in place, unmoving.
It's like calling yourself a Nazi, but you don't believe in gassing Jews, you know?
Similarly, you're mistaken about what a 'heliocentrist' means . . . maybe instead of refusing to listen, you should listen carefully when RadioAstronomer tells you what he does?
"Heliocentrists" don't ignore the rest of the universe, for starters. You've gotten that little tidbit wildly wrong.
*sigh* no... it means that 'codes' found in the bible are not proof of the divine origin of the work.
Alphabits remain merely alphabits.
Dan, all you're doing in your heliocentric argument is arguing over exactly what the definition of 'heliocentrism' is. You're not arguing over whether it is a fact or not, just the definition of what the word means.
If I'm finding codes (words) in my alphabits that are entirely undirected then that must mean that any codes (words) I find elsewhere are equally undirected.
Isn't that the basis of the argument? That unidrected codes in Tolkein is evidence that the codes in the Bible are undirected as well?
Right?
I was asking you what you meant. You were the one asking whether I agreed with your definition.
"So when you say you're a geo-centrist . . . you're confusing folks here. You sound like you're defending the idea that the Earth is fixed in place, unmoving."
Unmoving in relation to what? The question is what are you talking about, not what are geocentrists talking about? If you are going to accept the geocentrist definition, then you can't argue against their position. If you don't accept the geocentrist position, then you need to define what your position is before we can discuss it.
"Similarly, you're mistaken about what a 'heliocentrist' means . . . maybe instead of refusing to listen, you should listen carefully when RadioAstronomer tells you what he does?"
I have listened and responded to everything RA and you have presented. Where did you or RA respond to Airey's Failure or Michelson-Gale, or Michelson-Morely, or Einstein, or Hoyle or Mach?
""Heliocentrists" don't ignore the rest of the universe, for starters. You've gotten that little tidbit wildly wrong."
Where has a heliocentrist ever invoked the rest of the universe in a defense of heliocentricity? Please show me.
Please consider the following song lyrics from Monthy Python's The Meaning of Life...
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
If the above be so (with the Heliocentric model) then wouldn't we all feel a bit dizzy?
Umm, not exactly. They failed to detect the motion of the earth relative to the ether - and so the concept of an ether was discarded. Though, of course, there were those who said that the earth and the ether moved in - let's say - divine harmony.
Yeah, you shouldn't cherry-pick your evidence like that. Michelson-Gale detected both the ether and motion and you shouldn't pretend that Michelson-Morley occurred in isolation.
Unless you are proposing a little pocket of ether that stays still around the earth so that Michelson-Gale can detect motion but follows the earth around the sun so the Michelson-Morley cannot?
Is that your solution?
:-)
Ok, look -- we're all in agreement here about this. If you're arguing *against* astronomers who don't believe that all mass in the universe is significant, then you win. We all agree with you.
That doesn't argue against "heliocentrism", but you did win the point in grand style.
In fact, the idea that the mass of the rest of the universe doesn't matter is a hallmark of "geocentrism", which believes that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and unaffected by all that gravity.
So if your point is that all the matter in the universe is important, that all that gravity has to be taken into account, you're actuallly arguing *against* geocentrists, and *for* the heliocentrist view.
Isn't that ironic?
Nah, cuz we only feel changes in acceleration.
Like once you're on a merry go round. You feel like you're not moving, like the world is moving around you.
I *love* that song, btw!
I'm just trying to understand your statements. They simply aren't accurate and that isn't my problem. And are you sure that you have been anointed to speak for everyone? I don't remember that.
"That doesn't argue against "heliocentrism", but you did win the point in grand style.
As for arguing against heliocentrism, I don't see how ignoring all of the mass in the universe doesn't argue against it. Why not ignore the motions of distant galactic structures as as being evidence that the theory of gravity is wrong and invoke invisible mass to rescue the existing theory? Uh, never mind... already been done.
"In fact, the idea that the mass of the rest of the universe doesn't matter is a hallmark of "geocentrism", which believes that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe and unaffected by all that gravity."
Again, you misrepresent geocentricity as something exactly the opposite of what I have been saying. Why don't you take your own advice and listen to what I'm telling you.
"So if your point is that all the matter in the universe is important, that all that gravity has to be taken into account, you're actuallly arguing *against* geocentrists, and *for* the heliocentrist view."
That's only true if your strawman misrepresentation of geocentrism is true. I have clearly explained to you that your misconceptions are wrong. Why won't you listen?
"Isn't that ironic?"
That you misrepresent geocentrism and won't listen?
The Privileged Planet documentary is awesome.
Do you think that there is an ether? Michelson-Gale-Pearson doesn't indicate this....
Unless you are proposing a little pocket of ether that stays still around the earth so that Michelson-Gale can detect motion but follows the earth around the sun so the Michelson-Morley cannot?
No, though this was proposed, too. AFAIR, Lorentz invented his transformations due to the thought of moving bodies being somewhat compressed by the ether...
I prefer to think of ether as a kind of phlogiston...
Hmmm . . . I really am trying to understand you, honestly.
Ok, I hear you say you're a geocentrists. I've talked to other geocentrists before, on rare occasions. They believe something specific: That the Earth is the unmoving center of the universed.
I look it up:
Yet you tell me this is a misrepresentation of geocentrism.
Then what you *describe* as your version of 'geocentrism' actually describes 'heliocentrism'.
Can you see my confusion? It's literally as if you call yourself an "atheist" but say you believe in God.
Please, help me out here. At the very least, do you understand what others say is "geocentrism", and how you calling yourself that when you believe the opposite is possible?
No, you're oversimplifying. The argument is that using exactly the same methodology that Biblical Numerists use to discover 'hidden' codes and prophesies in the bible can be used on any text with similarly prophetic results. This means that the codes found in the bible are almost certainly not placed there deliberately, or conversely, that God is speaking to us from every text ever written.
If you were to one day look down in your alphabits and find the complete Encyclopedia Britannica article on say, Botswana, spelled out in your bowl, then you would have some evidence that perhaps the encyclopeida entry had been written by random chance.
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.Now you answer:So?
That is the way science is done. Theories are modified to become increasingly accurate.
In some cases, theories can't be modified to account for new data, and are replaced by new, and more accurate, theories.
Why do you expect that a theory has to be unchangeable, and why do you criticize science when it modifies theories to be more accurate?
This is a serious question, and I would like to understand your reasoning.
Simple: The other side says..."This is how it works!"
and it gets engraved in stone.
And then later, in smal print says, "Uh, we changed how it works."
I think you are vastly underestimating how science works.
I have seen time and time again that you and others here disparage scientists for couching their research in cautious terms. "It seems," "appears," "may be interpreted as" and many other similar terms that are common in science, although perhaps not so common in science written for the layman by science writers.
Now you are criticizing science for, as you put it, saying "This is how it works! ... and it gets engraved in stone."
You can't have it both ways.
I think you just don't like the results of some scientific investigations, and that you are taking cheap shots.
If this is not the case, please answer the question I asked above: Why do you expect that a theory has to be unchangeable, and why do you criticize science when it modifies theories to be more accurate?
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.