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.

[GourmetDan]

The fact that you cannot find it proves that you don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

[si tacuissem]

The fact that you cannot find it proves that you don't understand what I am trying to tell you.

So try to enlighten me - give me a link to the version of the Michelson-Gale experiment you are talking about.

From reading the posts I got the impression that you think that the model of a not moving earth is consistent with our observations and theories. Is this your opinion?

How still has such an unmovable earth to stand?

[GourmetDan]

"So try to enlighten me ..."

I don't think it possible. You don't want to understand.

As far as I can tell, all you want to do is misrepresent the issue and stay confused.

[si tacuissem]

GD: As far as I can tell, all you want to do is misrepresent the issue and stay confused.

Was I misrepresenting your position by this sentence:

st: From reading the posts I got the impression that you think that the model of a not moving earth is consistent with our observations and theories. Is this your opinion?

[MHalblaub]

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

I doubt you know what they really measured within the experiment. With an error of 2 % you won't be able to navigate an aircraft with a laser gyroscope. The accuracy was 5 parts in 1000. "The Sagnac effect is not an artifact of the choice of reference frame. It is independent of the choice of reference frame,[...] "(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect)


"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."

So what does move the pendulum in a geocentric model? The spinning universe? Ups, then some galaxies had to move faster than light. Can you explain this to us? And finally Foucault's pendulum experiment says straight the opposite of your claim. The pendulum isn't moving because there is no influence.


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

This experiment was already realised. It's called Global Positioning System. GPS works only without an aether.


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

Ever tried to answer a question?
You were wrong with your claim "Michelson-Gale does indicate an ether."
You were wrong with your claim " "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." (See GPS)
You were not able to grasp what "Airey's failure" was and claimed one time the opposite you claimed before.

Your Muslim finally knows something.

[GourmetDan]

"Your Muslim finally knows something."

Physics Today (May 2002):

In Earth’s neighborhood, the field equations of general relativity involve only a single overall time variable. While there is freedom in the theory to make arbitrary coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is to use an approximate solution of the field equations in which Earth’s mass gives rise to small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of special relativity, and to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense-Thirring drag... (Physics Today, p. 42)

The GPS is allowed to ignore relativistic effects to get the 'correct' answer.

Also note that they *assume* an earth-centered inertial reference frame and fixed stars to make the system work. The same thing that I am telling you is not just a convenient assumption, but reality. I love it when 'science' is forced to ignore their belief in heliocentricity and 'assume' reality in order to get their systems to work.

Course, then we get guys like you who try to claim that GPS supports heliocentrism when we actually find that GPS is *forced* to assume geocentrism to work. Ha Ha.

The muslim knows nothing and, worst of all, doesn't want to.

[MHalblaub]

"The GPS is allowed to ignore relativistic effects to get the 'correct' answer."

You are wrong again. The GPS can ignore the Lense-Thirring effect but GPS wouldn't work without relativity being true.

The Lense-Thirring drag is an effect anticipated by general principle of relativity. It is so small still today it is not quite proven. Final results for Gravity Probe B are expected for April 14, 2007.


"Also note that they *assume* an earth-centered inertial reference frame and fixed stars to make the system work. The same thing that I am telling you is not just a convenient assumption, but reality."

From the article you posted:
"In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of Lense-Thirring drag..."

You still didn't know what an inertial reference frame is, do you?


"While there is freedom [...] coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is [...] to choose coordinate axes originating at the planet’s center of mass and pointing toward fixed stars."

And your are still unable to understand what you read. They used a coordinate system with axes going to fixed stars but with a rotating earth as center.
"Did you catch that?! Let me translate for you."("About scientific (& theological) aspects of Geocentricity", page 7) Sorry, the translation there is wrong.


Lense-Thirring effect is a really awkward way to show the earth is rotating.


"The muslim knows nothing and, worst of all, doesn't want to."

That is true for all fanatics.

[GourmetDan]

You are getting off track. We are discussing heliocentrism and geocentrism, not whether relativity is true or not. And GPS is a geocentric system, not a barycentric system.

http://web.mit.edu/mecheng/pml/spec_location.htm

"The GPS coordinate system is an earth-centered Cartesian system. The coordinates produced by GPS are geocentric coordinates based on the center of the earth with X, Y and Z components."

And apparently, were GPS a barycentric system, corrections would be required:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988PhRvL..61..903R&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=&high=46027c70db15912

"The purpose of this paper is to clarify the effects of relativity in each frame and to demonstrate their equivalence through the analysis of real laser-tracking data. A correction to the conventional barycentric equations of motion is shown to be required."

Doesn't look like GPS is any support for heliocentrism.

Agreed that all fanatics know nothing and don't want to (including heliocentric ones).

[MHalblaub]

"You are getting off track."

Which track? You always jump on another track then running out of arguments.

"We are discussing heliocentrism and geocentrism, not whether relativity is true or not."

To do this, I have to know if you accept relativity. I'm still not sure about that topic.


"And GPS is a geocentric system, not a barycentric system."

From your link:
"The coordinates produced by GPS are geocentric coordinates based on the center of the earth with X, Y and Z components."
You have do distinguish between the system GPS is working with and the coordinates it produces. GPS uses geocentric and barycentric systems. On which system do you think a satellites orbit is calculated for flying around a planet with a moon?

From the abstract you posted:
"Whether one uses a solar-system barycentric frame or a geocentric frame when including the general theory of relativity in orbit determinations for near-Earth satellites, the results should be equivalent to some limiting accuracy."
And some keywords:
"CENTER OF GRAVITY, EARTH ORBITS, GEOCENTRIC COORDINATES, ORBITAL POSITION ESTIMATION, RELATIVISTIC THEORY, SATELLITE ORBITS, EARTH ROTATION, [...]"

"And apparently, were GPS a barycentric system, corrections would be required:"

Where did you read that? "conventional barycentric equations" is in physics a system there you neglect relativistic effects. A geocentric system is also a barycentric system as you may know. For some folks a very special one.


"Doesn't look like GPS is any support for heliocentrism."

Read my posts and you'll see I only claimed GPS is a hint for relativity.
Try to light another straw-man.

A straight question to you:
Do you think the earth is rotating?

[GourmetDan]

"Read my posts and you'll see I only claimed GPS is a hint for relativity. Try to light another straw-man."

You are the one posting strawmen.

The subject has always been geocentrism vs heliocentrism.

Bye

[MHalblaub]

"The subject has always been geocentrism vs heliocentrism."

Just look at the top:
"Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution"

Your post #374
"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."

Because GPS won't function without relativity the Michelson–Morley experiment (MM) is not a hint for non moving earth.


"You are the one posting strawmen."

In opposite to you I tried to answer your question or disprove some of your unverified claims. To disprove the one above is easy. Just read my posts in this thread.

You posted "Airey's failure" at #336. Real nonsense physics as I have shown.

You abused Ernst Mach at post #374 because you don't understood him.

You still failed to answer why you think a Foucault pendulum or any other gyroscope seems to move. But I think you dislike that track.


Have a nice weekend!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

What amazes me is how similar evolutionists and Socialists really are. Both want to be able to define their own narrow set of "facts" as the "only" truth, and then rule everything else out of bounds.

Yes, and to support your point, here is a quote from Julian Huxley, the famous darwinian eugenicist and author of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis:

The probable result will be that in the Socialized State the relation between religion and science will gradually cease to be one of conflict and will become one of cooperation. Science will be called on to advise what expressions of the religious impulse are intellectually permissible and socially desirable, if that impulse is to be properly integrated with other human activities and harnessed to take its share in pulling the chariot of man's destiny along the path of progress.

Julian Huxley, Religion as an Objective Problem.