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]

"Bwahahahahaha! OMG. This I need to share with some of my colleagues."

Appeal to ridicule.

One of the oldest fallacies there is.

[RadioAstronomer]

I cannot remember correctly the problem that led to some spacecraft missing the target some years ago.

Mars Climate Orbiter:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html

(I had friends flying that mission - sad time)

[RadioAstronomer]

Appeal to ridicule.

Appeal? Gads - I don't need to resort to "appeal to ridicule". You are doing a fine job on yourself without my help.

[RadioAstronomer]

Oh man. I about fell out of my chair. ROFL!

[atlaw]

I don't get people who claim to be Biblical "literalists," and I don't get people who reject the reality of the physical world around them when it supposedly conflicts with their idiosyncratic "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

[MHalblaub]

"You have it backwards. In a geocentric model, so-called fititious or pseudo forces are generated naturally. It is GR that is forced to call them fictitious or psuedo forces, not geocentricity."

Now something moving:

Coriolis effect


"Your ignorance is astounding. Geocentric models are used to calculate moon flights. The only time the sun is used is for interplanetary flights."

system earth-moon

Good look for your space ship!


"Wrong again. They are talking about the foundation of GR. CS are interchangeable by definition."

This is only true within physics for inertial reference frames or non inertial reference frames with the same acceleration vector. If not you have to change your physics.
Have you ever tried Hamiltonian mechanics?

"Educate yourself."

[longshadow]

Beware the Wobbly Universe; the End is Nigh!

< /cosmological clown mode>

[DungeonMaster]

I don't get people who claim to be Biblical "literalists," and I don't get people who reject the reality of the physical world around them when it supposedly conflicts with their idiosyncratic "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

I've been on both sides of the fence, so I get both sides. The physical world doesn't conflict with anything in the bible though.

[GourmetDan]

More appeal to ridicule to support the last appeal to ridicule.

[longshadow]

Is it my imagination, or did somebody just conflate Copernican Heliocentrism with Keplerian Heliocentrism?

[GourmetDan]

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.

[RadioAstronomer]

The evidence is out there. You just need to get off your butt and go read it.

A geocentrist - in 2007! Shaking head with amazement.

BTW, a well written page:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Geocentrism.HTM

"Geocentrists don't deal with the hard questions. The earth is at the center of the universe? Well, what part of it? London? Paris? Some point about 1500 miles below Pago Pago? The center? Which center? The geometric center? The center of mass? Those won't be exactly at the same place. What happened when Mount Saint Helens collapsed? The shape of the earth changed slightly, so the geometric center of the earth shifted. Since mass was redistributed, the center of mass shifted. Did the whole universe shift slightly in response?

Geocentrists are wusses. The true physical picture of the universe is egocentrism. I am the center of the universe. I never move (You do, however. Sorry, but your claim that you are the center of the universe is mere heresy.) If I "go down to the first floor to get a cup of coffee," I don't actually move. When I walk to the elevator I really stand still and push the earth and the entire universe behind me with my feet. When I get into the elevator I exert a force that causes the earth and the universe to move upward relative to me. If I do a pirouette, I really push against the earth and cause it and the universe beyond to spin. That funny feeling I have afterward is merely due to the gravitational pull of all that spinning mass attracting my inner ears. When I did pushups in the Army I really did push-aways, and chin-ups were really me pulling the whole universe down past my chin. No wonder they were so hard. Situps are the worst. You try swiveling the earth and the whole universe through 90 degrees with just your stomach and leg muscles. The universe is so fixated on me that if I give it a chance, like say jumping off a bridge, it will rush toward me so hard it will kill me.

Well, if you buy the deconstructionist psychobabble picture of science, egocentrism is just as valid as geocentrism or heliocentrism. Still, to make it work, I have to invent all sorts of weird forces that act only when I do certain things, and there is no way to predict exactly when they will appear, what they will do or why they work. On the other hand, assuming that I move relative to the earth makes all these problems go away. So, even from an egocentric perspective, why would I want to embrace a convoluted theory that requires me to postulate all sorts of bizarre forces that contribute nothing toward my understanding of the way things work? The only possible answer is that I want to believe in egocentrism regardless of the evidence, and redefine reality to fit my preconceptions."

[RadioAstronomer]

< /cosmological clown mode>

This rates right up there with "a circle is not an ellipse".

ROFL!

[Dominic Harr]

The true physical picture of the universe is egocentrism.

I'm sorry to disagree here . . . but I must.

I'm a believer in 'Honeycentrism'. The concept that my *wife* is the center of my universe . . .

[GourmetDan]

"Geocentrists are wusses."

This is nothing more than a continued appeal to ridicule.

Ernst Mach showed that the rules of geometry would be violated if there were any essential difference between geocentric and heliocentric models.

In Einstein's GR, differenct coordinate systems (which is what geocentrism and heliocentrism are) are interchangeable.

Sir Fred Hoyle recognized that there is no way to tell astronomically which model is correct.

Yes, the evidence is out there and that evidence shows that there is no discernable difference between the two models. What this means is that you cannot prove scientifically that one model is correct and the other is not.

I used to be a heliocentrist until I started looking at the evidence for geocentrism. Once I realized that it was impossible to prove that heliocentrism was correct, I rejected it. That you have a strong philosophical preference for heliocentrism is obvious, but philosophical desires are not science.

You need to stop pretending that heliocentrism is proven. It isn't and the work done by multiple pre-eminent scientists shows that it is impossible to do so.

This gets back to my initial claim that many people harbor beliefs that they think are scientifically proven when they are not. Heliocentrism is one of those beliefs.

[GourmetDan]

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. This is why heliocentric and geocentric models are consistent CS under GR. They have to be because Einstein assumed that the earth was moving and had to develop a theory that was consistent with the evidence that it was not.

You do realize that telescopes must be angled slightly so that starlight focuses properly? 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? This is known as Airey's failure.

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

[Dominic Harr]

In Einstein's GR, differenct coordinate systems (which is what geocentrism and heliocentrism are) are interchangeable.

Um -- nope.
Geo-centrism

This is your central error.

Geo-centrism has a meaning. That ain't it . . . read that and then you'll see why folks are laughing at the idea of supporting geocentrism.

I don't know what you're defending, but it ain't geocentrism. :-D

Similarly, I don't know what you're criticizing, but 'heliocentrism' ain't it.

If you're saying that you can describe the universe/solar system mathmatically, relative to the Earth, then we're all in agreement here.

But that's got nothing to do with geo/helio centrism.

[longshadow]

Take your pick:

[GourmetDan]

Geocentric and heliocentric models are interchangeable under GR coordinate systems. Einstein admitted as much and so did Hoyle. Ernst Mach proved that the laws of geometry would be violated if there were any essential defference. If you can't see that heliocentric and geocentric models are interchangeable, then you have the wrong understanding of the geocentric model, or both.

Michelson-Morley failed to detect the motion of the earth around the sun.

Michelson-Gale detected the relative rotational motion between the earth and the universe, so motion is detectable.

Airey's Failure failed to detect the motion of the earth around the sun.

Apparently it is your understanding of geocentrism that is flawed, not Ernst Mach, Einstein, Hoyle or me.

[Dominic Harr]

Apparently it is your understanding of geocentrism that is flawed, not Ernst Mach, Einstein, Hoyle or me.

I'm sure you're right.

So let's just define terms, then.

"Geo-centric" is the word for the concept that the Earth does not move at all. That the rest of the universe is moving *around* the Earth.

"Helio-centric" is the word for the idea that the sun's mass is the center of gravity that holds this system we call the 'solar system' together.

So are you saying you don't believe the Earth moves . . . at all?