Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3916&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage ^

[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.

[Elsie]

For the earth this comes out to about a 4-min/day difference.

Ooh, you're right. I'd forgotten that 1 turn around the Sun every 'year'!

Then there's that goofy fact that the Earth's orbital time is not 365 days, but 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45 seconds (and some stuff...)!

Does THAT mess things up?

[Elsie]

The stars need to be centered on the sun to generate the gravitational offset that the annual wobble of the universe's rotation generates to move the center of gravity away from the sun.

As the Gieco® caveman says....

What ?!?

[Elsie]

A small, if important, piece of the puzzle.

It could be the key piece....

[Elsie]

That had to be a big "Oh $h|t!" moment!!

I've written code I just COULD not debug before.

I finally threw away what I was working on and rewrote it, this time it worked right.

Eyeballing the old VS the new I could NOT see the difference - they looked the same!

I used a COMPARE function on both sources and the computer found what I could not, a comma where a Dp should be.

test, Test, TEST!!

[Elsie]

Coriolis effect

A really cool observation of this effect is at the playground!

hAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS FACE EACH OTHER ACROSS this THING (Wanna buy a caps lock key?), spin it and toss a ball back and forth!

[Elsie]

My bologna has a first name.....

[Elsie]

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?

You should ask, "Why won't you agree with us now; even though you know we will change our position later?"

[Dominic Harr]

I used a COMPARE function on both sources and the computer found what I could not, a comma where a Dp should be.

All software has bugs. All software can be simplified.

Therefore all software in the world can be reduced to one line that does not work!

A good IDE like Eclipse or Visual Studio should help with things like that, but I know what you mean. Just last week I had a function that was incorrectly calculating a score for a survey. I wasted 4 hours trying to figure out why. Finally one of my new hires, a fresh-out-of-college fella, wanders by and I ask him to look at it, fresh eyes.

He leans over and says, "Right there, you used the wrong variable!

Some days . . . :-)

[GourmetDan]

Um, for a second time.

Look at Michelson-Gale, don't look at Michelson-Gale-Pearson. That's a different experiment.

Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether.

Michelson-Gale-Pearson was another attempt at a Michelson-Morley experiment and again returned a null result for the motion of the earth around the sun.

[GourmetDan]

You aren't even talking about Panin anymore.

You're talking something else entirely.

[Elsie]

Therefore all software in the world can be reduced to one line that does not work!

At times it DOES seem this way! ;^)

[si tacuissem]

Look at Michelson-Gale, don't look at Michelson-Gale-Pearson. That's a different experiment. Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether.

There seems to be a mix-up of Michelson-Gale(-Pearson) and Michelson-Pease-Pearson. Do you have any links to them?

AFAIK, all of them tried to find an effect of lateral (MPP) or rotational (MG) movement relative to an ether (or aether, if you prefer so).

Michelson-Gale-Pearson was another attempt at a Michelson-Morley experiment and again returned a null result for the motion of the earth around the sun.

As I said, it's about a movement through the ether - the movement around the sun is something different.

But, to come closer to home:

Do you think that the moon revolves around the (center of the) earth? Or do you allow for earth and moon revolving around their center of gravity, i.e., the earth wobbles :-) ?

[MHalblaub]

"That it is impossible to physically distinguish between geocentric and heliocentric models is the point of the work of Mach, Einstein and Hoyle and recognized by their published statements."

I have shown you several times that there are differences in the models.

"You do realize that Michelson-Morley was the experiment that was *desinged* to detect that *assumed* motion of the earth around the sun. You do realize that it found no motion."

Michelson-Morley's experiment just showed that the speed of light is constant. So the original intension had to fail.

The motion of the earth around the sun is not "*assumed*". You can calculate within an non-inertial coordinate system what ever you want but you got a moving center of mass to fix the earth in a sun-earth system. As I said before then you have to alter your physical laws. Einstein was well aware of this fact despite of you.

"This angle is assumed to be the result of the earth's motion, yet if you fill the telescope with water (which slows the speed of light and would require an increase in the angle of the telescope) that no increase in angle is required?"
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/geocexpl.htm

This is real BS you know? To aim at one point you need no telescope at all! The light will then always hit vertically. Then you won't have any refraction effect.
You really have a atmospheric refraction that change star positions the more you move to the horizon.
If you measure horizontal and after that you fill your telescope up with water the star has moved to zenith and the effect is gone.

"This is known as Airey's failure."
(Do you want to know what Sagnac's failure is?)

"You do realize that the only arguments against geocentrism are emotional?"

Your arguments are strict rational like the ones above?
You still lack to understand the difference between inertial and non-inertial systems. That's why you misinterpreted Einstein's comment.

[GourmetDan]

Don't make the mistake of confusing models with reality. My point was that you cannot physically distinguish between the models, not that that models aren't different.

And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant. The null result was 'interpreted' to mean that the speed of light was the same in all reference frames. It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving. The null result was entirely unexpected.

The motion of the earth is assumed. Calculating something does not mean that it represents reality. You assume that you have a moving center of mass. The evidence to support it is distinctly missing.

Airey's failure is another failure to find evidence that the earth is moving and Einsteins's comment about the different CS for heliocentrism and geocentrism being equivalent is accurate as stated.

Ernst Mach also showed that planetary orbit arguments are invalid because the laws geometry would have to be broken for their to be an essential difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism.

The evidence for heliocentrism just isn't there. It is a belief, not a fact.

[GourmetDan]

I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google.

[si tacuissem]

I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google.

No doubt about that! So, is the Michelson-Gale-experiment you refer to this one (from wikipedia):

The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment is a modified version of the Michelson-Morley experiment which tests the aether drag along the rotating frame of Earth. That is, if aether is dragged rotationally by the Earth, as was assumed by many, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment would be able to detect this effect.

[snip]

Interestingly the experiment was expected to generate a positive result both for an entrained aether as well as due to relativistic effects. The main difference would be the magnitude of the effect. It was thus a surprise to everyone when the MGP experiment also returned what appeared to be a null result, or at least a rather inconclusive one. The results consisted of 269 measurements that showed an effect of -0.04 to +0.55 fringes, which could be seen as evidence of the rotational effects, but at the same time they were not statistically significant.

BTW - what's about the moon?

[MHalblaub]

"I find lots of information by just typing 'Michelson-Gale' into google."

Just try to understand a ring laser gyroscope.
After that try reading this source Effect of Earth's Rotation on the Quantum Mechanical Phase of the Neutron
"Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether."
You erred again. light-speed and aether

"Don't make the mistake of confusing models with reality. My point was that you cannot physically distinguish between the models, not that that models aren't different. [...]The motion of the earth is assumed."

In the beginning I thought you tried to explain something else but now I see you really think of a fixed earth.
Here for beginners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

"And MM didn't *show* that the speed of light was constant.[...]It could also be interpreted as showing that the earth is not moving."

So a space station performing the Michelson–Morley experiment should prove something else?

"Airey's failure is another failure to find evidence that the earth is moving [...]"

Your sources tried to prove some nonsense as I explained. There is an atmospheric aberrancy. "Airey's failure" shows your lack of competence on the field of physics.
"Si tacuissem, ..."

"Ernst Mach also showed that planetary orbit arguments are invalid because the laws geometry would have to be broken for their to be an essential difference between geocentrism and heliocentrism."

Do you really know what your are talking about? You remind me of most of the Muslims. They talk other the Koran without being able to read it in Arabic or even having knowledge in their own language about their hol(e)y book.

Mach's principle:

Statt nun einen bewegten Körper auf den Raum (auf ein Koordinatensystem) zu beziehen, wollen wir direkt sein Verhalten zu den Körpern des Weltraumes betrachten, durch welches jenes Koordinatensystem allein bestimmt werden kann. Voneinander sehr entfernte Körper, welche in bezug auf andere ferne festliegende Körper sich mit konstanter Richtung und Geschwindigkeit bewegen, ändern ihre gegenseitige Entfernung der Zeit proportional […] Die eben angestellten Betrachtungen zeigen, daß wir nicht nötig haben, das Trägheitsgesetz auf einen besonderen absoluten Raum zu beziehen. Vielmehr erkennen wir, daß sowohl jene Massen, welche nach der gewöhnlichen Ausdrucksweise Kräfte aufeinander ausüben, als auch jene, welche keine ausüben, zueinander in gleichartigen Beschleunigungsbeziehungen stehen, und zwar kann man alle Massen als untereinander in Beziehung bestehend betrachten […] auch ich erwarte, daß astronomische Beobachtungen zunächst nur sehr unscheinbare Korrektionen notwendig machen werden, so halte ich es doch für möglich, daß der Trägheitssatz in seiner einfachen Newtonschen Form für uns Menschen nur örtliche und zeitliche Bedeutung hat.
(Ernst Mach)

Mach's_principle

"...philosophus mansisses" Boethius, "Consolatio Philosophiae".

[GourmetDan]

No that's not it.

[si tacuissem]

So, which is it?

[GourmetDan]

Michelson-Gale detected the relative rotation of earth and universe within 2%.

In order for your foucault pendulum to mean anything, you have to assume that the universe influences it in a heliocentric model but does not in a geocentric model. An inconsistency is necessary for your example to be valid. Not good.

A space station may generate a non null result for MM if the instruments are sensitive enough.

You remind me of a Muslim in that you pretend that science says one thing when you know it says something else.