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!
