Seminar on 13 October 06 - Dismantling the Big Bang Theory
-
Anyway, ilangobi, thanks for the information!
Icemoon, you went and you kept quiet?
-
Icemoon: In the middle, quite near the front. I think 4th row. I was with a friend.
Kaister: np! My views on your points:
1)"6 days is not 6 days"...it is! At least to John Hartnett. That means from an observer on earth, the creation is 6 days. If you're saying then that this measure of time can be anyhow fixed (i.e. why not take the measure of time from somewhere else e.g. the Moon, Jupiter, another galaxy etc.)...then I think the answer is because we are on Earth, so we measure by Earth time. Logical?
Oh and I suddenly remember one point he brought up during the talk...supposedly using the Hubble space telescope and aiming in any direction you choose you can see the universe receding equally in all directions--->the universe is centred around the earth. I forgot the exact details, but if true, then this is interesting.
2) The point about genetic information. He emphasized that genetic mutations "almost never" result in "beneficial" information added. Unlike the examples you gave. I guess beneficial is defined by us, then how is it that we can become fully functioning humans as we are today. Then again we need to look at the full evidence and see whether it is just simple a case of probability, or really intelligent design... -
Originally posted by ilangobi:Icemoon: In the middle, quite near the front. I think 4th row. I was with a friend.
Kaister: np! My views on your points:
1)"6 days is not 6 days"...it is! At least to John Hartnett. That means from an observer on earth, the creation is 6 days. If you're saying then that this measure of time can be anyhow fixed (i.e. why not take the measure of time from somewhere else e.g. the Moon, Jupiter, another galaxy etc.)...then I think the answer is because we are on Earth, so we measure by Earth time. Logical?
Oh and I suddenly remember one point he brought up during the talk...supposedly using the Hubble space telescope and aiming in any direction you choose you can see the universe receding equally in all directions--->the universe is centred around the earth. I forgot the exact details, but if true, then this is interesting.
2) The point about genetic information. He emphasized that genetic mutations "almost never" result in "beneficial" information added. Unlike the examples you gave. I guess beneficial is defined by us, then how is it that we can become fully functioning humans as we are today. Then again we need to look at the full evidence and see whether it is just simple a case of probability, or really intelligent design... You've just convinced me that this John Hartnett guy is an idiot. I can't believe someone still believes in the geocentric theory in today's world.
Regarding your second point, let me give you an example. Single gene mutation resulting in heterogeneous sickle cell anaemia is supposed to be non-beneficial to humans cos' of the lack of durability in the red blood cells created. However, heterogeneous status enables protection against malaria. That's why we see a greater proportion of people with sickle cell disease in malaria infested areas.
Therefore, mutations can be beneficial in the rigth environment. John Hartnett doesn't know his stuff. -
Whoa whoa...wait a moment.
Sucks having to defend a guy I do not like, but...
Regarding the "geocentric" thingy, I think I better explain properly. Ok firstly I admit I am not totally clear about his points. To be fair then, anything you address now is directed at me, because it is *my* interpretation of what he said! Anyway, if you take my word for it, this is what I think he meant. If we use a telescope and look in all directions, the universe is receding equally. This suggests that if the creation of the universe started from a single point which slowly expanded outwards, then that point is the Earth.
This is different from the idea of the universe revolving around the earth/sun. That one can be explained by gravitation. I too would be shocked if a PhD holder in cosmology / physics said that the universe revolves around the earth!
Then the genetics part. Again he said the mutations we observe "almost never" result in beneficial effects (as opposed to "never at all" ). Instead of saying that he doesn't know his biology, the main point we can take from this is: the probability of anything "beneficial" happening is very small. Logically true. Let's say we have a deck of 52 cards, we we want it such that the cards are neatly arranged by suits. Random shuffling would very very rarely produce such a configuration.
How small? How rare? What would it take to convince me / you that we are the product of probability? So that's why I say, we need to look at the evidence. -
Okie, then I've misunderstood him then.Originally posted by ilangobi:Whoa whoa...wait a moment.
Sucks having to defend a guy I do not like, but...
Regarding the "geocentric" thingy, I think I better explain properly. Ok firstly I admit I am not totally clear about his points. To be fair then, anything you address now is directed at me, because it is *my* interpretation of what he said! Anyway, if you take my word for it, this is what I think he meant. If we use a telescope and look in all directions, the universe is receding equally. This suggests that if the creation of the universe started from a single point which slowly expanded outwards, then that point is the Earth.
This is different from the idea of the universe revolving around the earth/sun. That one can be explained by gravitation. I too would be shocked if a PhD holder in cosmology / physics said that the universe revolves around the earth!
Then the genetics part. Again he said the mutations we observe "almost never" result in beneficial effects (as opposed to "never at all" ). Instead of saying that he doesn't know his biology, the main point we can take from this is: the probability of anything "beneficial" happening is very small. Logically true. Let's say we have a deck of 52 cards, we we want it such that the cards are neatly arranged by suits. Random shuffling would very very rarely produce such a configuration.
How small? How rare? What would it take to convince me / you that we are the product of probability? So that's why I say, we need to look at the evidence. I tried to do a search on his theory but I couldn't find anything. How was the calculation done? How did he tell if the expansion was uniformly around Earth? I want to find out so if anyone knows please tell me.
You don't get "beneficial happenings" in evolution. You get changing environments that selects out advantageous configurations from the diversity. If you take a deck of cards and put them in an environment where all spades are burnt, what you get are surviving clubs, diamonds and hearts. You don't do it by random shuffling but you do it card by card. The environment is like a person that selects out the good cards from the bad ones. Evolution is far from chance. -
Yep. I agree on this. Well said. =)Originally posted by kaister:If you take a deck of cards and put them in an environment where all spades are burnt, what you get are surviving clubs, diamonds and hearts.
As for the earth in the centre of expanding universe...
I finally found the damn paper and my scribblings:
"Hubble's Law. His equation showed redshift increase in all directions, suggesting an earth-centric universe. Sloan Digital Sky Survey-->showed that universe is isotropic"
Ok I googled Hubble and redshift. I read some of the possible interpretations of this, and yah, it seems to me that Hartnett's logic on this is very very leaky. Dunno about the Sloan digital sky survey though. -
Ya I just read up on Hubble's Redshift. It is a method of measuring expansion of the universe (sortof). It can also help calculate the rate of recession of the universe from one viewpoint.Originally posted by ilangobi:Yep. I agree on this. Well said. =)
As for the earth in the centre of expanding universe...
I finally found the damn paper and my scribblings:
"Hubble's Law. His equation showed redshift increase in all directions, suggesting an earth-centric universe. Sloan Digital Sky Survey-->showed that universe is isotropic"
Ok I googled Hubble and redshift. I read some of the possible interpretations of this, and yah, it seems to me that Hartnett's logic on this is very very leaky. Dunno about the Sloan digital sky survey though.
Here's a great explanation of how Redshift works:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/hubble.html
Sloan Digital Sky Survey kinda maps out the universe from Earth's viewpoint, but I still can't find Hartnett's papers. Do you have his equations or his paper? -
Nope, neither. He never quoted any. He just gave Hubble's law, and concluded that since the universe is receding away uniformly in all directions from us, we must be at the centre of the expansion.
Yah come to think of it, if that's all he has to say on the matter, then only three possibilities:
1. He's telling a half-truth --> it's not technically wrong to say we are at the centre of expansion, but there are infinite "centres" of expansion. i.e. we can view this phenonenon even if we're somewhere else. Just like being on an inflating balloon, we can choose any point.
2. He really doesn't know any better.
3. That isn't all he has to say on the matter.
Seems very dubious to me! -
Another possibility could be that he thinks we wouldn't understand the mechanisms and he left out the workings and equations.Originally posted by ilangobi:Nope, neither. He never quoted any. He just gave Hubble's law, and concluded that since the universe is receding away uniformly in all directions from us, we must be at the centre of the expansion.
Yah come to think of it, if that's all he has to say on the matter, then only three possibilities:
1. He's telling a half-truth --> it's not technically wrong to say we are at the centre of expansion, but there are infinite "centres" of expansion. i.e. we can view this phenonenon even if we're somewhere else. Just like being on an inflating balloon, we can choose any point.
2. He really doesn't know any better.
3. That isn't all he has to say on the matter.
Seems very dubious to me!
Found his papers. Not the physical ones though.
http://internal.physics.uwa.edu.au/~john/publications.html
None of them are on the subject unfortunately.
Btw, he's not a cosmologist! Just a physicist with special interest in the subject. However, I was too quick in dismissing his qualifications as he seems quite well established in his field. -
Yep I've found something.
In the below interview:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bigbang.asp
He states that "some recent research on redshift patterns have badly damaged its credibility by indicating that our galaxy is at, or near to, the centre of the universe". And this is the reference:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf -
because you didn't ask me.Originally posted by kaister:Anyway, ilangobi, thanks for the information!
Icemoon, you went and you kept quiet?
I already dropped hints in the topic about New Sanctuary in SAC. -
that's so near the stage.Originally posted by ilangobi:Icemoon: In the middle, quite near the front. I think 4th row. I was with a friend.
I was behind, on the slope. From my vantage, I could observe the people in front.
I very funny siah .. 'cos I was one of the first to leave for the intermission .. I quickly went out to find the book discussing who was Cain's wife.
Too bad they don't accept NETs .. or I might just buy a book. -
haha .. I think he only gave two equations that night.Originally posted by kaister:Another possibility could be that he thinks we wouldn't understand the mechanisms and he left out the workings and equations.
if you are so interested ..can always buy or borrow his book.
I think the talk like some publicity for his book siah .. (and many others as well)
Alarm bells start to ring when he started publicising the books before we went for our break. -
How to catch your subtle hint?!?!? Aiyo...Originally posted by Icemoon:because you didn't ask me.
I already dropped hints in the topic about New Sanctuary in SAC. -
You guys should look at Russell Humphrey's (the guy who wrote the paper in the above link) entry at Wiki:Originally posted by ilangobi:Yep I've found something.
In the below interview:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bigbang.asp
He states that "some recent research on redshift patterns have badly damaged its credibility by indicating that our galaxy is at, or near to, the centre of the universe". And this is the reference:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys
Once again, misrepresentations and lack of understandings... when will these people ever learn? -
haha .. the seminar was in New Sanctuary.Originally posted by kaister:How to catch your subtle hint?!?!? Aiyo...
And I did mention I went there on friday. -
Oh the link following from it is betterOriginally posted by kaister:You guys should look at Russell Humphrey's (the guy who wrote the paper in the above link) entry at Wiki
http://www.nmsr.org/humphrey.htm