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]

I wonder if the Earth had a greater eccentricity of orbit, if thinkers of old would have been able to figure out astronomical truths sooner?

[Elsie]

BTW, Westcott and Hort published in the 1880s. Their findings have never been used in any edition of the KJV.

Since the KJV came out in 1611 it's no WONDER they weren't used!

[Elsie]

And indeed we need to take that into account. I get paid mucho buckaroos to do what I do. (And I am very good at it)

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

(I can't even find it on Google® 'cause I really don't know what to search for!)

Anyway, there was a comma instead of a decimal point, or metric measurment where an English system was expected. Some thing that our eyes, when doing multiple error checkings, never notice, for it is right in front of us.

Do you remember the incident?

[Elsie]

Something we ALL can agree on!! ;^)

[DungeonMaster]

Are you contending that the "word" of God is confined between the covers of an ancient manuscript?

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So what is the bible anyway?

[Elsie]

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."

[Elsie]

(If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)

At the rate we're going; it'll be WHEN!

[GourmetDan]

"Well guess what bucko; the stars shift as the Earth orbits the Sun. Something called parallax. If the Sun orbited the Earth, I would not have to take that into account. A sidereal day vs. mean solar is a result of our orbit and parallax is a direct result if the Earth orbiting the Sun. Capiche?"

Well guess what bucko. The stars also shift if they are centered on the sun and the sun orbits the earth. They also exhibit parallax if they are centered on the sun.

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.

If the stars were centered on the earth, there could be no gravitational offset from the universe's annual wobble and the gravity of the sun would not be offset. Parallax is the evidence that the stars are centered on the sun and the gravitational offset is generated by the annual wobble of the universe's rotation.

Capiche?

[GourmetDan]

"My assumption is, you need so called fictitious or pseudo force to explain with a geocentric model what you see or you do what Einstein and Infield explained: "Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems]". You have to alter the physical laws if you use a non-inertial reference frame."

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.

"You can stay with your geocentric model but I won't believe you'll be satisfied to calculate a flight to the moon properly with your physical laws."

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

"Einstein and Infield were talking about a mathematical trick."

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

[Elsie]

Mars??

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801589/posts

Around #75

[GourmetDan]

"You can find codes of this kind in any book, from the Constitution of Australia (one of the works used in the article) to The Lord of The Rings. Was JRR Tolkein as divinely inspired as the authors of the Bible?"

I gotcha.

Since I can find words in my alphabits, that means that the encyclopedia is no more authoritative than my bowl of cereal.

[Dominic Harr]

Geocentric models are used to calculate moon flights.

No, they're not . . . unless you mean something *very* different by 'geocentric/heliocentric'.

'Geocentric' doesn't mean that you only use the earch in calculations . . . this is your error here, I see it now.

What do you think heliocentric means?

[atlaw]

Are YOU contending that an ancient manuscript does NOT contain "word" of God?

Of course not. The word I used was "confined". And the use was in response to the apparent contention that God's creation (the word of God writ large, if you will) is somehow not the "word" of God.

I find it peculiar that a certain sect of Christianity views scripture as somehow separate and apart from the physical world, adopting a kind of Biblical idolatry. God did not "speak" once and calcify his "word" between the covers of a book.

So what is the bible anyway?

A small, if important, piece of the puzzle.

[RadioAstronomer]

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.

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

Thanks. I really needed the laugh this morning. :-)

[Dominic Harr]

Thanks. I really needed the laugh this morning. :-)

Astronomer humor?!

:-D

[DungeonMaster]

I find it peculiar that a certain sect of Christianity views scripture as somehow separate and apart from the physical world, adopting a kind of Biblical idolatry. God did not "speak" once and calcify his "word" between the covers of a book.

So what are you saying? You don't get people that believe the bible is the Word of God, inspired and without error and that it contains an immeasurable wealth of truth that applies to all of life?

[SwedishConservative]

ping

[RadioAstronomer]

Siderial vs Mean Solar is a direct result of the Earth orbiting the Sun in an elliptical orbit.

The same applies for even a perfectly circular orbit (degenerate ellipse). It will still take that extra tiny bit of rotation for the body (Sun) being orbited to be in the same spot (noon) as apposed to the exact 360-degree rotation referenced to a "fixed" distant location (star/Vernal Equinox).

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

[RadioAstronomer]

I wonder if the Earth had a greater eccentricity of orbit, if thinkers of old would have been able to figure out astronomical truths sooner?

Oh yes! The heliocentric model was proposed long ago. The primary reason it got shot down was the instruments of the time could not resolve the parallax.

Even thousands of years ago they knew parallax was one of the “requirements” for a heliocentric solar system.

[GourmetDan]

Here's some more fun for you.

(N. M. Smerdlow and Otto Neugebauer, Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus's De Revolutionibus, 1984).

"It has often been said that the Copernican heliocentric theory was superior to the Ptolemaic theory because it was simpler. However, Smerdlow and Neugebauer observe: "Anyone who thinks that Copernican theory is "simpler" than Ptolemaic theory has never looked at Book III of De revolutionibus. In a geocentric system the earth is at rest -- as indeed it appears to be -- and any apparent motions in the heavens that we know to result from its motions are distributed among a number of objects, i.e. the sun, the individual planets, the sphere of the fixed stars, everything in its proper place as it actually appears. But when Copernicus worked through the consequences of his own theory, he had to attribute to the earth no less than three fundamental motions and a number of secondary motions. That all these compounded motions forced upon a single and, to all appearances, quiescent body seemed implausible to his contemporaries is not to be wondered at, especially because the end result was nothing other than reproducing the same apparent motions in the heavens that had been accounted for all along (and without making assumptions that contradicted contemporary natural philosophy, common sense, and the most casual or most meticulous observations then possible of the behavior of the earth and of objects on or near its surface)." (Smerdlow and Neugebauer, ibid., p. 127.)