Seminar on 13 October 06 - Dismantling the Big Bang Theory
-
That is such a dumb reply, it insults my eyes just to read it.Originally posted by davidche:are chirstians supposed to be viewed as a soul? -
I'm afraid I don't see your point. Care to rephrase with more distinction and affirmitive statements?Originally posted by laurence82:Edward de Bono once said, and i paraphrase. There are two forms of regulations. The first one is the law, which prevent us from killing one other. The other, is etiquette, which prevents us from annoying one another.
-
Its related to what you said about being annoyed.Originally posted by nomood:I'm afraid I don't see your point. Care to rephrase with more distinction and affirmitive statements?
-
sigh, don't beat around the bush leh, misleading.Originally posted by laurence82:Its related to what you said about being annoyed.
me annoyed => christians no etiquette?
i hope you're not suggesting that. -
then i hope u are not suggesting christians are close minded peopleOriginally posted by nomood:sigh, don't beat around the bush leh, misleading.
me annoyed => christians no etiquette?
i hope you're not suggesting that. -
I quite agree to this Bono's words. Indeed theres alot of things that cant be solved simply by law.
By law, you arent supposed to play pranks.
But only by ettiquite, that makes a person refrain from playing pranks on other ppl.
Which is why i dont play pranks.
-
imo, his book Lateral Thinking is one of the best books ever writtenOriginally posted by davidche:I quite agree to this Bono's words. Indeed theres alot of things that cant be solved simply by law. -
Originally posted by davidche:Which is why i dont play pranks.
-
Originally posted by nomood:That is such a dumb reply, it insults my eyes just to read it.
-
Btw, how's the seminar? Who went? Any comments?
-
Very niceOriginally posted by kaister:Btw, how's the seminar? Who went? Any comments?
Got refreshments some more -
You went? How was that guy?Originally posted by laurence82:Very nice
Got refreshments some more -
i thought you brought up the issue on free food last time?Originally posted by laurence82:Very nice
Got refreshments some more -
Nice beardOriginally posted by kaister:You went? How was that guy?
.......
You really think I go har?
-_-! -
You just put out the last spark of hope in my weeping heart...Originally posted by laurence82:Nice beard
.......
You really think I go har?
-_-!
-
Bumping this thread.
Can anyone who went post some main points talked about in this seminar? Don't tell me no one went.... so anti-climax. -
hmm i think soOriginally posted by kaister:Bumping this thread.
Can anyone who went post some main points talked about in this seminar? Don't tell me no one went.... so anti-climax. -
No one went?Originally posted by NT2:hmm i think so
-
I went.
Since it was targeted at a layman audience, he didn't really go into the mechanics. I took some notes but I seem to have misplaced them...intended to do some research on it when my school term ends.
Okay this is all that I remember:
1. Creation in 6 (?) days as stated in the bible. Basically there are theories that say that the 6 days is metaphorical, right? Hartnett takes for a zero-compromise position instead. i.e. 6 days is REALLY 6 days on earth. The question is how come the universe can be billions of years old when creation takes place over 6 days.
He uses relativity to explain that...the rest of the universe was created while 6 days passed on earth. I guess it might be possible, time "slows down" for an object moving at a faster relative speed compared to another. Personally I'm not convinced yet, I have to try to work out the physics of it myself.
2. Big Bang theory. He states that the source of cosmic radiation is one of the problems that Big Bang cannot explain. Again given my lack of physics knowledge, I cannot comment further. I guess you can read it here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4643/
3. First Cause. Big Bang has no first cause (i.e. what came before the big bang?) thus it is not an acceptable theory--it doesn't explain the meaning of our existence. Christianity has no problems as such. (I disagree with this logic, and would rather examine the big bang from other angles.)
4. Dark matter. Hmm. I always thought that the idea of dark matter / anti-matter was more or less accepted by scientists. Hartnett rejects dark matter.
http://www.uwa.edu.au/media/statements/media_statements_2006/february/uwa_physicist_challenges_dark_matter_theories_(10_february)
5. Evolution: Natural selection only reduces genetic information in total gene pool and never adds to it. Hmm. I'm not sure why either.
Aa x Aa = AA Aa Aa aa. I don't see any loss of information there. Oops I forgot what was the convincing point he made.
He added that empirically genetic mutations result in loss of information almost all of the time. Again have to verify this.
---------------------------------------------
Well I guess point number 1 would interest most Christians. Okay, so I have given you the facts. Now as a free-thinker who attended the talk...honestly, the talk was fairly interesting and informative. But without jumping to conclusions, I need to work out the details myself.
The second thing (my opinion) I don't really respect this John Hartnett after hearing him speak. The truth is I felt he was pushy and arrogant. If he believes in the truth of what he says, I don't see the need to use a tone of ridicule when addressing other theories. If his logic is good I would be convinced. Childish is the word. The tone of his presentation was like "I am right and everyone else is wrong and dumb, so there." Really hard for me to stomach.
Anyway not important. Doesn't make any of his theories more wrong or right. If anyone knows anything extra about those 5 main points I made above, I'd like to hear it. Thanks! -
Actually alarm bells rung a few times during the talk.Originally posted by ilangobi:The second thing (my opinion) I don't really respect this John Hartnett after hearing him speak. The truth is I felt he was pushy and arrogant. If he believes in the truth of what he says, I don't see the need to use a tone of ridicule when addressing other theories. If his logic is good I would be convinced. Childish is the word. The tone of his presentation was like "I am right and everyone else is wrong and dumb, so there." Really hard for me to stomach.
Anyway not important. Doesn't make any of his theories more wrong or right. If anyone knows anything extra about those 5 main points I made above, I'd like to hear it. Thanks!
if you remember, during the Q&A session, he spoke about biology. He was like so confident about it.
This is a no no for a scientist. The true scientist is one who is uncomfortable about speaking outside his expertise.
I did a bit of research after the talk. The problems he spoke are real, but they do not seriously undermine the big bang theory. -
oh yah...I found him less...persuasive when talking about the biology.
Anyway what's the point on the reduction of genetic information? Did you get that part? -
It means you can't get more than what you have. The genetic information can be combined differently from the parents but you won't get new genetic information from this.Originally posted by ilangobi:oh yah...I found him less...persuasive when talking about the biology.
Anyway what's the point on the reduction of genetic information? Did you get that part?
OT: where did you sit that day?
-
Ahem... allow me...Originally posted by ilangobi:oh yah...I found him less...persuasive when talking about the biology.
Anyway what's the point on the reduction of genetic information? Did you get that part?
Genetic materials can be added by a lot of mechanisms. Let me just try to name a few without going into the specifics:
1. Meiosis defects (Trisomy 21 - Down's syndrome)
2. Mitosis defects (Cancer cells)
3. Viral insertion (Retrovirus - HIV)
4. Splicing errors
These are just a few I can name off my mind. Apparantly, Dr John Hartnett doesn't know his stuff...
-
Isn't that the same thing as trying to say that 6 days might not be 6 days? Anyway, does calculation of days matter when you don't have the sun at the beginning to keep count?Originally posted by ilangobi:I went.
Since it was targeted at a layman audience, he didn't really go into the mechanics. I took some notes but I seem to have misplaced them...intended to do some research on it when my school term ends.
Okay this is all that I remember:
1. Creation in 6 (?) days as stated in the bible. Basically there are theories that say that the 6 days is metaphorical, right? Hartnett takes for a zero-compromise position instead. i.e. 6 days is REALLY 6 days on earth. The question is how come the universe can be billions of years old when creation takes place over 6 days.
He uses relativity to explain that...the rest of the universe was created while 6 days passed on earth. I guess it might be possible, time "slows down" for an object moving at a faster relative speed compared to another. Personally I'm not convinced yet, I have to try to work out the physics of it myself. -
I can't help but comment on this... He compared himself to Barry Marshall??! Barry Marshall's a nobel prize winner for goodness' sake! He swallowed H. Pylori bacteria just to prove they cause peptic ulcers. That's from no foolishness but it's bravery and confidence of one's theory.Originally posted by ilangobi:4. Dark matter. Hmm. I always thought that the idea of dark matter / anti-matter was more or less accepted by scientists. Hartnett rejects dark matter.
http://www.uwa.edu.au/media/statements/media_statements_2006/february/uwa_physicist_challenges_dark_matter_theories_(10_february)