Big Bang: Exploding the Myth 💥 with Dr. Terry Mortenson

president and CEO of Answers in Genesis the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter thanks for joining us in Legacy Hall to hear dr. Terry Mortensen one of our most popular international speakers dr. mortinson holds a PhD in the history of geology from the University of Coventry in England and a Masters of Divinity degree he has traveled to over 25 countries to teach apologetics in churches conferences and both secular and Christian universities for 26 years he served in university campus ministry in both America and Eastern Europe with Campus Crusade for Christ before coming to Answers in Genesis he is a respected author and a popular speaker dr. mortinson even helps to lead creation based rafting trips through the Grand Canyon each summer at this time please silence all cell phones and note that emergency exits are located up front to your right and left and along the left side of the room now let's give our full attention and a warm welcome to my friend of many years dr. Terry Mortensen good afternoon how many of you are here at the Museum for the very first time oh good number of you were welcome and welcome to those of you who've come back for another visit BIGBANG exploding the myth we look up in the heavens today and we see amazing sights sights that people didn't see until Galileo turned the telescope to the heavens we have nebulas and galaxies of all different sizes and shapes and colors and it's just just amazing what we see out there and then when we get closer to home we have amazing planets like Saturn and Jupiter and the jewel of the whole universe is where we live earth how did all those things come into existence well the dominant view today in the world is the theory of evolution and you might say well now wait a minute I thought evolution was about Darwin and how we got plants and animals well it is about that but evolution is really a three part theory to explain all of reality and so I like to explain it this way we have biological evolution which explains how the first living cell came into existence then now that cell over millions of years diversified into all the different plants and animals but then you have geological evolution which explains how the earth came into existence from a hot molten ball slowly cooling and and developing a crust and evolving an atmosphere and eventually those rock layers with all those fossils formed and then you have cosmological evolution which explains how stars and galaxies and planets and solar systems came into the into existence you say well I've never heard of cosmological evolution or geological evolution well that's maybe because you haven't heard me give this talk but actually the evolutionists do use that kind of language here are the covers of for astronomy textbooks and they're all talking about the evolution of stars and galaxies and I could show you geology textbooks that talk about the evolution of the earth here's a chart you in an online course at Harvard University about cosmic evolution from Big Bang to mankind so the whole story is evolution and that story about origins is based on a worldview that controls science today it is the worldview that philosophers call naturalism but it's also known by the name a theism and there are two assumptions controlling science today the first assumption is that nature or matter is all that exists now not every scientist believes that there are scientists who believe in God but most scientists do their scientific work as if that's true so they might believe in God on Sunday or Saturday whenever they're going to their religious services but when they do their science they do it as if nature is all that exists and the second assumption controlling science today is that everything can and indeed must be explained by three things time and chance and the laws of nature working on matter if you have those three things time enough of it millions and billions of years chance and the laws of nature the laws of physics and chemistry you can explain the origin of stars and galaxies the origin of the solar system the origin of the earth the origin of plants and animals the origin of man the origin of language the origin of religion you just need enough time chance and the laws of nature well because of those assumptions the dominant view today regarding cosmic origins is the Big Bang Theory and when the theory was excuse me originally proposed in the early 20th century they talked about this really really compact bit of matter energy space which some affectionately called the cosmic egg that developed some kind of instability and it started to expand and space expanded with it that was the big bang today they don't talk about the cosmic egg because of course that raised an important question well where did the cosmic egg come from and a lot of astronomers and astrophysicists didn't like that question so now they say well nothing expanded into something and that happened about 13.7 billion years ago and after a few hundred million billion years helium and hydrogen gas clouds began to form and they then develop centers of gravity and that collapsed and ignited nuclear reactions which caused the first stars to be born 10 to 12 billion years ago and then some of those stars exploded in supernovas and that caused shockwaves in the nearby universe that caused other gas clouds to collapse to form new stars and our Sun was born about 5 billion years ago and the solar system came from the Sun so that's the evolutionary view for the origin of the cosmos based on naturalistic assumptions but not all scientists accept those assumptions there are scientists who have a biblical worldview not a naturalistic atheistic worldview and there are two basic assumptions in the biblical worldview the first is that the eternal good all-knowing all-powerful holy God exists and he created everything else now that's a very different starting assumption than nature is all that exists and the second assumption flows out of this one because this God is not silent he's a speaking God and he has spoken through one book the Bible and the Bible is God's completely truthful eyewitness testimony that explains the key events in history so that we can correctly interpret the evidence from the origin and history of the creation and so we want to look at what the world actually reveals to us and look at what are the results and how the assumptions of those two different worldviews fit with what we actually observe but before we do that we need to just clarify an important word and that's the word science you've maybe heard this evolution is science and creationist faith or evolutionist science and creationist religion ever heard anything like that the evolutionists love to say that but whenever I hear that I know that that person either doesn't really understand science and the nature of this origins debate or he's trying to confuse us because to understand the this origins debate we need to understand that there are two broad categories of science I like to call them operation science and origin science operation science is what we normally think of when we think of science it's also called experimental science or observational science and it's the science that produces technology finds cures for disease it's the science that put a cellphone in everybody's pocket and so most of biology chemistry physics meteorology what they do on the evening news weather report engineering medical research those are all forms of operation experimental observational science we're studying things in the present to see how they operate how they function whether it's cancer cells or weather patterns and we're trying to figure out how to predict things how to manipulate things how to produce new technology but that kind of science won't answer the question how did Saturn come into existence because you can't recreate Saturn in the laboratory it's there and you want to know what happened in the unobserved past to produce that planet to produce those rings that's a historical question and so for historical questions we need what I call origin science and that's also sometimes called historical science and historical geology trying to figure out the history of the earth paleontology studying fossils paleoanthropology studying human fossils paleoclimatology trying to figure out what was the climate like a million years ago archeology cosmology and forensic science that's what police detectives - trying to solve the question why is that dead body in the living room that's a historical question these are forms of historical science and I can illustrate the difference between the two if I think about of a car a car mechanic is an operation scientist he knows how the car operates he knows how the Pistons go up and down he knows how the air-conditioner works and if it doesn't work he knows how to fix it but just because he knows how the car operates doesn't mean he knows anything about how the car came into existence the way the Pistons operate doesn't tell you how the Pistons came into existence the way the air-conditioner works doesn't tell you how the air-conditioner came into existence that's a question of origins and so the car manufacturer is the origin scientist he knows how the car operates but he knows how every part of that car came into existence the question of origins is a different question than the question of operation we know how things operate some things about what some things operate in our universe we know how some things go around other things some in very elliptical orbits some in pretty close to circular orbits and things rotate on their axes so we know things about how they operate but the question is what do people know about origins so the question of operation is one thing the question of origins is a different question and we need to understand that all of the scientists whether they're creationists or evolutionists they have the same things to study they have the same stars the same galaxies the same plan it's the same star dust the same star light and if they start with naturalistic assumptions they come up with a big bang and billions of years for the formation the origin of these things those who start with biblical assumptions look at the very same objects and they see all kinds of evidence confirming that the universe is designed and young so we want to look at this and I want to begin by looking at what the evolutionists know about origins and then we'll look at what the Bible says about origins and to keep this simple we're gonna start with our nearest neighbor the moon and go farther and farther out into space so let's consider the origin of the moon and the evolutionists who proposed several theories for the origin of the moon they have technical scientific names I've given them simple names to help me remember and help you one is the sister theory the idea here is that when the earth was a hot metal ball spinning on its axis it no that's not the one I just got confused no the sister theory is that as there was a there were rings around the Sun two centres of gravity developed in what is now the orbit of the earth and the material got pulled in around those two centres of gravity one of those centres of gravity eventually became the earth the other became the moon nobody ever saw that happen nobody ever did a scientific experiment in the lab to show that that happened people were speculating about the unobserved past to explain the moon that we see in the present but there were lots of theoretical problems with that as well as no observational support so that theory has been discarded another one is the wife theory now this doesn't actually explain the origin of the moon but it explains how the moon became the satellite of the earth the idea is that the moon was floating through the solar system it came close to the earth and the earth looked up at the moon and said hey I really like that lady and so the gravitational attraction of the earth pulled the moon into orbit now nobody ever saw that happen nobody ever did a scientific experiment to show that that happened and there are huge theoretical problems one of which is if the moon came in towards the earth like that it wouldn't immediately go into or but it would boomerang off in another direction so that theory has been discarded and then there's the daughter theory and they're actually a couple variations on this one is that when the earth was a hot metal ball it was spinning on its axis it developed a little bit of a bulge on one side and as it was spinning that bulb stretched and stretched and pretty soon it broke loose cooled and that became the moon another is that the the earth was bombarded with meteorites and and asteroids over a long period of time and chunks of material got blasted off the earth out into space it eventually all got into what is now the orbit of the moon and all got together nobody ever saw any of that happen nobody ever did a scientific experiment to show that that happened and there are serious theoretical problems with it and so those ideas have been discarded but there's one other daughter theory and that is the giant impact theory and the idea here is that the there was an object about the size of Mars floating through the solar system it slammed into the earth broke off a huge chunk of material and that all got together and became the moon nobody ever saw that happen nobody ever did a scientific lab experiment they're speculating about the unobserved past to explain the moon that we see in the present well in 2003 Discover Magazine had an article where did the moon come from now that's exactly the question we're trying to answer and they said in fact the story of the moon's origin is still slim on details that's a scientific way of saying we really haven't got a clue experts are divided over whether the collision happened before or after the earth had grown to its present size hey I don't want a lot of detail could you just tell me when that Marge sized object hit the earth was was the earth the size it is now or a different size I have no idea well that was 2003 and you might think well that was 15 years ago science is advancing so rapidly they surely know the origin of the mune now well they didn't in 2012 in phys.org new research provokes more questions about the origin of the Moon it's beguiled Watchers since before records were kept and today still it fills poets with pensive musics and scientists with enchanting questions where did the moon come from and how did it get there hopefully new research will one day provide us with a definitive answer until that day though it seems we will all have to just keep musing well the evolutionists are amusing creationists aren't because we have the word of the creator himself who told us when and how it came into existence but there are problems with those naturalistic all those naturalistic theories one is that we always see one side of the Moon and the reason that we do is because the moon is rotating on its axis at the same rate that it's going around the earth the scientists say it is tidally locked there are many moons in the solar system that are tightly locked but not all and Mercury Venus Earth and Mars are not tidally locked to the earth we can be really thankful for that because if the earth was tightly locked to the Sun it would be burning on one side and absolutely frozen on the other side well there's another interesting fact about the moon and that is that it produces every few years somewhere on the earth a solar eclipse and the moon slides right across our line of vision and completely covers the disk of the moon the reason that it does this is because the moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun but it is 400 times closer to us than the Sun and scientists tell us that there are a hundred and eighty-one moons and solar system and there's no other moon planet relationship that produces a total solar eclipse that looks designed not an accident we've put men on the moon we've left equipment on the moon we've brought back rocks from the moon we know some things about how the moon operates but they have no idea the moon came into existence so let's see what they know about the origin of the solar system and as I've already indicated they believe that the solar system came from a giant gas cloud that eventually evolved into the Sun and then flattened out and produced the rings and those rings became planets and here in aerospace Webb org you can see that it's a simple five-step process but there are serious problems with that naturalistic theory one is that the earth is 70% covered with liquid water it is the only known place in the universe where there's liquid water and liquid water is absolutely essential for Biological life if this if the earth was a little bit closer to the Sun our oceans would boil to steam if it was a little bit farther from the Sun our oceans and lakes would burn would freeze all the way to the bottom we're just the right distance from the Sun kind of like Goldilocks just right for life then there's the fact that if we still count Pluto which was demoted from being a planet in 2006 but is being reconsidered but if we count Pluto and the four inner planets they're all solid planets but the four jovian planets of Neptune Saturn Jupiter and Uranus they're gas giants for the liquid center you can't land on those planets that seems kind of odd if it's all the result of a slowly spinning gas cloud the Sun is 98% helium and hydrogen the three planets closest to the Sun are only 1% of those elements they have different atmospheres mercury has almost no atmosphere Mars is very thin atmosphere Venus is a very dense hot atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere is just right for life the planets have different orbits different speeds of rotation different tilts of the axis different numbers of rings or moons some planets have both rings and moons and different atmospheres in fact the more they send out space probes the more they're surprised by what they find according to an evolutionary expectation and then if we still count Pluto 7 of the 9 planets are rotating in the same direction that they're going around the earth around the Sun but Venus and Pluto are rotating backwards compared to the direction they're going around the Sun Jupiter Saturn and Neptune have moons going in opposite directions around the planet most of the planets have a tilt of an axis which is roughly perpendicular to their path around the Sun but Uranus and Pluto are rotating on their sides in a textbook on astrophysics back in 1987 in the chapter on the solar system we read our brief survey has revealed the structure and content of the solar system that's just telling us what's there we can successfully but the story's not closed we can successfully interpret many of the observed features such as the sources of meteorites however a plethora that's a large number of unanswered questions remain concerning the origin of these features these unresolved questions prompt tentative answers which they discussed in chapter 7 well that was 1987 and you might say again well I mean that was 30 years ago surely they know the origin of the solar system now well they didn't in 2009 Newsweek magazine a New Scientist magazine had a cover story the unknown solar system six greatest mysteries in our cosmic backyard what were those six greatest mysteries well they tell us in the article the first one is how did the solar system form why are the Sun and the moon the same size in the sky is there a Planet X where did comets come from is the solar system unique how will it end these are enduring mysteries to the evolutionists and you open up the article and they've got this big full-page picture showing you again that it's just a five-step process for the origin of the solar system but it's always good to read the fine print not just look at the pictures and up at the top it says we think we know not we know we think we know the story of the solar system but only comparison with other systems can tell us if that story is universal now watch what they just did they just changed horses in the middle of the stream they start out saying we think we know this story in other words how the solar system came into existence and then they switch to a different question we're not sure whether that story is unique or not well I don't want to know whether it's unique I want to know whether the story is true and they don't know 2011 scientists tell us we found that the earth and the moon as well as Martian and other meteorites which are samples of asteroids have a lower concentration of oxygen 16 than does the Sun the implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials that created the Sun just how and why remains to be discovered so they know things about how the solar system operates they know how some things go around other things and how long it takes to go around other things but they have no idea how the solar system came into existence so let's go farther out into space what about the origin of stars and galaxies well Stephen Weinberg is a world-famous astrophysicist speaking at a conference in 1985 a conference of astrophysicists he said among the most important relics are the structures that we see in the sky that's relics of the Big Bang many stars are grouped into clusters the clusters themselves along with loose stars like our Sun are grouped into galaxies and the galaxies themselves are grouped into clusters of galaxies that's just observing what's there we want to know how did it come into existence a second great disappointment of astrophysics has been that we still do not have a clear and detailed understanding of how these structures were formed now notice what they don't even know we don't even know whether the smaller structures form first and then coalesced into the larger ones or whether the larger structures form first and then broke up into the smaller ones I don't I don't want a lot of detail could you just tell me did a lot of small things get together and make big things or did big things break apart to make the small things they don't know he goes on it's also a bit disturbing that all these estimates of the ages and compositions of the stars rest on elaborate calculations of what is going on inside but all that we observe is the light emitted from their structures and that's still all that we observe well that was 1985 but here in 2002 you have a photograph of the first star being born and you can see up in the top top left picture there there's a pretty dispersed gas cloud but you can kind of see that some of that gas and dust is starting to pull together in the center and then in the top right picture you can see that more of it is getting pulled in by gravity in that yellow area and then in the really big picture you can see right in the center in that yellow area there's a star being born there you know where that photograph was taken this article tells us it was taken in our universe and it was in penn state astronomer tom Able's virtual observatory do you know where that a virtual observatory is it's in his computer he didn't see that through a telescope they've never observed a star born out there in space well how did his computer make those pictures oh he programmed his computer according to his assumptions about stellar evolution by time and chance and the laws of nature they have never observed the birth of a star they've observed death of stars and supernovas but not the birth of a star most of the universe's mass is invisible and no one really knows what it is said Marcus Joan and award-winning astronomer star formation is shrouded in mystery generally speaking as star forms when a cloud of gas collapses under gravity that's their belief they've never observed that however if the cloud is too hot pressure will combat the effect of gravity and prevent the cloud from collapsing so to form a star the gas cloud must have a way of cooling down this isn't as easy as it sounds in today's universe this is accomplished by a huge array of molecules which collide and radiate away the heat again that's the belief that's not observable science however the atoms necessary for making all but the simplest molecules molecular hydrogen have to be made inside stars it's a chicken and egg situation in other words you've got to have stars to make stars but the question is where did the first stars come from John Mather who at the time was at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland and when a nobel prize for his work on the Big Bang says we have no direct evidence of how galaxies were formed how the first stars formed without the help of the prior generation of stars how galaxies evolved whether they were formed from aggregations of smaller units or from subdivisions of of larger ones everything happened in the cosmic Dark Age that's between the supposed Big Bang and when the first stars formed it goes right to the heart of the question of how we got here they have no idea but it's worse than that not only have they never observed a star being born or a galaxy being born not only do they not know how it happened it's worse than that in 2014 Neil deGrasse Tyson was the host for a an eight part TV documentary that was shown in many countries called the cosmos he is an open atheist and he was doing a revised version of the series on the cosmos that Carl Sagan did back in the 80s a few years before that program was featured however he said this if none of us knew in advance that stars exist front line research would offer plenty of convincing reasons why stars could never form so not only did they if they never seen a star born they don't know how a star is born everything that we know says there shouldn't be any stars but we have stars so they don't know how the moon came into existence they don't know how the solar system came into existence they don't know how stars and galaxies came into existence so what about the origin the universe will I go back to Stephen Weinberg he said you may have noticed that despite all these brave words I have not explained the origin of the universe the reason of course is that this is a matter about which scientists still have no clear idea it may be that we shall never know just as we may never learn the ultimate laws of nature but I wouldn't bet on it well if I was a betting man I'd bet big money they won't figure it all out think about it we have scientists living on this little tiny speck in the universe called earth around an average Sun which is just a speck in the Milky Way galaxy which is just a speck among all the galaxies and these little scientists are going to figure out all the laws of nature I don't think so David darling is a British astronomer PhD University of Manchester he says this don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one they have not got a clue either in the beginning they will say there was nothing no time space matter or energy then there was a quantum fluctuation from which whoa stop right there you see what they mean first there's nothing and then there's something and before you know it they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats I like that statement well in 2004 an article appeared in New Scientist which is a weekly science magazine that summarizes the scientific literature technical literature for the public and its evolutionist and orientation they published a one-page article which was also simultaneously posted on the Internet the article was entitled bucking the Big Bang was written by Eric Lerner but it was signed by 34 scientists from 10 countries all from prestigious universities or science organizations and I want to read to you a few statements from that one page article which is still on the Internet Big Bang Theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities things which we have never observed inflation dark matter and dark energy are the most important now inflation that's not what happens to the US economy that's what the evolutionists think happened in the first few microseconds of the universe after the Big Bang that the universe expanded really rapidly in a few microseconds and then since then it's been expanding slowly inflation matter and dark energy are the most prominent never observed without them there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the Big Bang Theory an open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream astrophysics conferences where as richard fineman could say that science is the culture of doubt that is because the way most scientific discoveries are made is by scientists questioning what everybody else believes about something and saying I'm gonna ask new questions I'm going to do some new experiments I'm going to explore new ways I'm not going to believe what everybody else believes about the cause of cancer or how these two chemicals can be combined in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated and young scientists learned to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard Big Bang model those who doubt the Big Bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding well it might cost more than their funding it might cost them their PhD if they don't have it yet it might cost them tenure at the university if they don't have it yet I know of one professor who lost his job at a major university simply for questioning the Big Bang he wasn't a young earth Bible believing creationist you see what we need to understand is what the scientific world has done a very good job of hiding from the public and that is that scientists are just like everybody else they're biased and they're driven by personal motivations and there's peer pressure and peer pressure in the scientific community is intense and it takes a courageous scientist to go against the majority well that was 2004 I kept going back to the website over the next few years for this article and whereas it started with 34 signatures of 34 scientists from 10 countries the last time I looked in 2011 it had been signed by over 4 scientists from over 50 countries many of them from prestigious scientific institutions bucking the big bang well in 2011 Scientific American had a cover story quantum gaps and Big Bang Theory why our best explanation of how the universe evolved must be fixed or replaced the article was written by Paul Steinhardt who is the Albert Einstein professor of science and director of the Princeton Centre for Theoretical science at Princeton University not a small time insignificant institution the title of his article the inflation debate with the sub question is the theory at the heart of the modern cosmology deeply flawed Steinhardt thinks the inflation theory is deeply flawed and he has proposed what he calls a cyclic theory which in my personal opinion is even more ridiculous because he believes in a series of expansions and contractions of multiple universes over trillions of years but the only universe that we know of is the one we live in so to believe in multiple universes over trillions of years reveals to me just how bad he thinks the Big Bang Theory is well in the article he has this chart showing the ultimate growth spurt of the universe and I want to just expand that a little bit so we can see a little more clearly down the vertical you've got time from the beginning of the Big Bang up at the top and it's listed in seconds that's 13.8 billion years and then across the horizontal you've got the size of the universe from nothing to its present size and then you see that line with colors of dots down the chart and then you see some horizontal lines and the bottom horizontal line is the limit of direct observation in other words they can see only a little bit of expansion or if we run it backwards shrinkage but actually they don't observe the expansion of the universe they observe the redshift of starlight well what's that well if you look at a light source in the laboratory through this apparatus a collimator and a spectrometer it will it will spread out the colors of the of the light spectrum and it produces spectral lines if you look at an object out in space through the same apparatus it will produce a spectrum but those spectral lines will be shifted usually towards the red end of the spectrum some objects are blue shifted but most objects are rested and they're not all red shifted the same amount well what does that mean well Edwin Hubble after whom the famous Hubble telescope was named interpreted that fact of redshift in the early in the 1920s as evidence of the expansion of the universe and he any he concluded that the greater the redshift the farther away the object is and the faster it's moving away from us kind of like the Doppler effect which you're aware of if you're sitting in your living room and you have the draperies closed and you hear a police siren you can tell that that police car is coming near your house and you can know when that car passes your house and keeps going the other way because the pitch of the siren changes and so the idea is that redshift is is like that that redshift means that the object is moving away from us and blueshift it's moving towards us so they haven't observed the expanse of the universe they've observed redshift and they interpret it as evidence of motion but that may be the wrong interpretation it's not proven to be the correct interpretation it's assumed to be the correct interpretation well what's the next line up in the chart well that's the limit of indirect observation which means that they've got to make a bunch of assumptions to add to their observations well if that's the limit of direct observations and then the limit of indirect observations what's the rest of the chart well that's not based on any observations at all because we've already used those up that's pure imagination based on anti-biblical naturalistic atheistic assumptions so Fred Hoyle is a very famous astrophysicist he died in 2001 famous English astronomer he was an opponent of the Big Bang and actually coined the term Big Bang it was a term of derision he said science today is locked into paradigms every Avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong and if you try to get anything published by a journal today you will run up against a paradigm or a model and the editors will turn it down you've maybe heard this it's often said by evolutionists they say creationists aren't real scientists because they don't publish their research in the peer-reviewed scientific journals well that's false they do publish their scientific research and peer-reviewed journals they just don't publish they're obviously creationist research in those journals because it's not going to get past the editor but they do publish other kinds of research in those journals well hearten alt is another world famous astrophysicist he was in an American atheist and also an opponent of the Big Bang he said scientists particularly at the most prestigious institutions regularly suppress and ridicule findings which contradict their current theories and assumptions astronomers now feel compelled to fit the observations to the theory and not vice versa in other words Big Bang thinking is controlling how people see things and interpret things so let's summarize then regarding the origin of the cosmic egg well that was unknown and an uncomfortable question regarding something coming from nothing well that's a scientific absurdity the origin of the Moon is unknown the origin of the solar system is unknown the origin of stars and galaxies is unknown so the Big Bang I submit that as an unbelievable myth being taught as proven scientific fact all over the world well what about the age of the universe well let me answer that question by asking another question how old am i this is opportunity for audience participation but anybody like to guess my age and there's no penalty if you get it wrong anybody yes what's that 59 anybody else 53 63 63 what's that 42 that's 43 that's very kind but why to the mark well actually you were pretty close I'll be 65 this summer but I don't always look my age sometimes that's an advantage sometimes it's a disadvantage but listen wait a minute how do you know that's correct what if God supernaturally created me a half an hour before I came into this room see every one of your estimates on my age you were making an assumption you were assuming that I came into existence the same way you did and everybody else you know you were making naturalistic assumptions but if God supernaturally created me if he completely wrong if you don't know how I came into existence you can't possibly know when I came into existence because then the the evolutionary estimates for the age of the universe are based on the same naturalistic assumptions that go into the Big Bang for explaining how the verse came into existence but we see they don't know how anything came into existence now I don't always trust Wikipedia but I do trust them pretty strongly whenever they're talking about evolution because their articles are written by evolutionists and the footnotes are in the technical peer-reviewed literature calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimated are also accurate well they've got this chart with it and you can see at the very beginning the earliest universe down at the bottom earliest gravity then earliest light cosmic expansion dark matter dark energy which they don't know what that is and then you've got the first single-celled creature in photosynthesis and multi-celled creatures and eventually men the article goes on in the physics and physical cosmology the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang see they've just assumed that the Big Bang is true measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang because they assume that the universe has been expanding and cooling at a certain rate and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time well they're making some more assumptions they're assuming that even if the universe is expanding right now that it expanded from a simple point what if it was made just a little bit smaller than it is now and it's expanded since then you see the assumptions hidden a new estimate of how fast the universe is expanding supports one side of an ongoing debate favoring a more rapid expansion observations of type 1a supernovas imply a faster expansion rate known as the Hubble constant that's then studies of cosmic background radiation if the disagreement persists it could indicate something amiss in scientists understanding of the cosmos perhaps related to the mysterious dark energy that is accelerating the universe's expansion but one think about the the origin or the age of the universe there are some objects that lead us to believe it's not anywhere close to what the evolutionists say as far as our solar system which is said to be five billion about five billion years old there are short period comets short period comets go around the Sun every less than 200 years long period comets take longer to go around the Sun but every time a comet goes around the Sun it's going in a very very elliptical orbit and it gets quite close to the Sun on one part of the orbit and when it does the heat and the energy coming from the Sun melts some of the ice breaks off some of the rocks and that comets only gonna go around the Sun so many times before it's the last lap it's blown to smithereens and Halley's Comet makes that path every 76 years and it's not going to last forever there's a problem we have comments in our solar system and if our solar system was really four and a half to five billion years old there shouldn't be any comets they should have all been destroyed and so the evolutionists have come up with two explanations for where more comets can come into the system one is the Kuiper belt which is just past the orbit of Neptune and there are objects out there but they're too large and the wrong composition and then there's the Oort cloud which is said to be past the orbit of Pluto but it's never been observed they've never observed anything out there so it's just assumed and then they've got the problem of explaining how you knock these things into orbit well if you want to know more about the problem of comets for the billions of years we have an article on our website and you can look at that further recently a space probe going by Pluto took close-up images of a region near Pluto's waiter revealing a giant surprise a range of youthful mountains see what they observe is surprising them because they have an evolutionary assumption of long ages then if we go farther out in space we have spiral galaxies and the arms of these spiral galaxies should not exist if these galaxies are billions of years old that is because they are spinning and they should be after billions of years should be an unrecognizable blob of stars the arms shouldn't be there anymore Danny Faulkner on her staff is PhD strana mer taught at the university level for over 25 years and he has an article on that if you want to learn more in our books the answers books vol 3 has a chapter on some more evidences for a young universe in Chapter 1 we've got a chapter on des distant starlight prove the universe is old this is a very common objection how can we see stars and galaxies that are billions of light years away if the universe is only 6,000 years old if you've got that question that would be a good book to get and in a chapter or you can read it the an article short article on our website and what the article and chapter show is that creationists have proposed several explanations for this but they don't have solid answers but the evolutionists also have essentially the same problem they can't explain how light got distributed throughout the universe to produce the uniform background radiation temperature so creationists don't have a good answer for that question but neither did the evolutionists well let's turn to what the Bible says because the evolutionists don't know how anything came into existence in the universe so what does the Bible say well the Bible says in Psalm 33 that by the word of the Lord the heavens were made and by the breath of his mouth all their hosts for he spoke and it was done he commanded and stood fast lots of Christians say the Bible tells us that God created it doesn't tell us how God created well it most certainly does 10 times in Genesis 1 it says and God said and right here it says God spoke things into existence and he didn't say let there be light and then wait for billions of years for light to form he didn't say let there be a Sun Moon and stars in the heavens and wait for billions of years he spoke and it was done Psalm 19 says the heavens are telling of the glory of God and their expanse is declaring the work of his hands the heavens do declare the glory of God and we see order and design we see constellations and as long as people have been looking up at the heavens way back to ancient Chinese in the northern hemisphere they've seen the same constellations that we see it looks designed it looks orderly things are moving in an orderly fashion and it reveals that the Creator is a lawgiver that he is orderly and you know explosions don't produce design if an engineer has an explosion in the lab he's not going to win a Nobel Prize explosions produce lack of order design is produced by an orderly mind well then let's look at the fourth day Genesis 1 God created the Sun Moon and stars he said let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night let them be for lights for four signs four seasons four days and four years and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth and it was so now that the phrase there in green that's that's just one of many evidences that these are literal days because he says why he created the Sun Moon and stars it's so that people could measure years and seasons and days and the movement of the heavenly bodies do enable us to measure literal year literal seasons and literal days but then you have those phrases in in yellow and let there be appears ten times in Genesis one and it was so appear seven times and God saw that it was good appears seven times and here's a simple principle of Bible study when you see God repeating himself you should say uh-huh I think he's trying to emphasize something and those phrases all together emphasize that when God spoke things into existence they came into existence and he declared them good before he went to the next day to make something else supernaturally on the day for and verse 16 we read God made the two great lights the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night he made the stars also now at this point Christians who accept the Big Bang and want to believe in billions of years they will they will say oh did you see that second word made in your Bible it's in italics and if you open up the front of your Bible the editors that produce that translation will tell you that anytime you see a word in italics it means there's no Greek or Hebrew word behind that English word it's been inserted by the translators and so see the verse doesn't say that God made the Stars oh yes it does and the reason that it's in our English Bible is because the Hebrew requires it there's a little Hebrew word in that verse that appears four times it's not translated but it's a direct object marker in the Hebrew language you remember in in eighth grade grammar the subject is the is the thing doing the action in the sentence and the direct object is the thing receiving the action so the boy hit the ball the boy did the action the ball received the action the boy ate the spaghetti the spaghetti did meet the boy the boy ate the spaghetti well this is telling us that God is the subject and it tells us what the direct objects are and all of those things the greater light which we know it to be the Sun the lesser light the moon and the stars they were all made by God and that's why our Bible translations put made where he made in there because it reads better in English it's required by the Hebrew and furthermore that Hebrew word in both instance in used in several other places in the chapter is the Hebrew word Asad it means to make or do it's one of the most common Hebrew verbs in the Old Testament in a Hebrew English lexicon will take up many pages of slight variations off that meaning but if you look in a Hebrew lexicon it never has the meaning to appear or to make visible now why do I say that because Christians who believe in the Big Bang and want to say that God didn't make the Sun Moon and stars on day 4 will say well see a God actually made them on day 1 and the earth was covered with a huge thick gas cloud it was so dense that no light could reach the surface of the earth and in verse 3 when God said let there be light God just thinned out the cloud a little bit to let light reach the surface nobody if they had been in existence at that time nobody could have seen the light seen the objects but they would see the light like on a cloudy day and then on day 4 they say God cleared out that cloud more so that then we can see the Sun Moon and stars the problem is Assad doesn't mean that and if that's what God did God had a perfectly good word right here in Genesis 1 to say it it's raw and it's used in verse 9 in the passive voice let the dry land appear so if God wanted to say that he made the Sun Moon and stars on day 1 and they only appeared on day 4 he could have easily said that in Hebrew he didn't he used the word Assad and as far as clouds there's no mention of clouds in Genesis 1 but God knows the word for cloud he used it in Genesis 9 and how to say thick clouds he did that in Psalm 18 11 so the Bible is really clear well that's for sake of argument ask the question if God didn't make the Sun Moon and stars on day 4 when did he make them where are we gonna put that well some might say in verse 3 when God said let there be light but that doesn't harmonize the Bible with the evolution story because then you have the Sun that the earth in existence in verse 1 before there's any light well that doesn't work ok well let's put it in verse 1 when God said in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth well then you've got a problem because you've got it all coming into existence at the same time but then you've got the Sun Moon and stars in existence but no light until verse 3 but there's another problem back to day 4 then God said let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens and God placed them in the expanse of the heavens when did God make the expanse or as some translations say the firmament well that was made on day 2 you can't have the Sun Moon and stars in existence before there's a place to put them well what about verse 1 before verse 1 now all of those won't work because of Exodus 20 verse 11 the fourth commandment a verse that I have found a lot of Christians who accept millions of years just ignore this verse but God tells the children Israel you work six days and rest on the seventh and he gives the reason for the commandment he says for in six days the Lord made the heavens the earth the sea and all that is in them he didn't make anything before the six days he made everything in six days he made the earth in those six days well according to Genesis 1 when was the earth made verse 1 in the beginning God created the heavens in the earth so what if we combined verse 1 of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20:11 what does that tell us it tells us that the first day began in Genesis 1:1 not in Genesis 1:3 when God said let there be light it began in verse 1 when God said in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth there is no time before verse 1 so the Bible clearly teaches that the Sun Moon and stars were all created in day--for there's another problem with trying to harmonize the Bible with the Big Bang Theory and that is that the order of events in the evolutionary story contradict the order of events in the Bible so you've got the Big Bang stars forming before the Sun our Sun our earth was a hot molten ball that came from the solar gas cloud and eventually cooled and developed a hard crust and then evolved an atmosphere and it rained an asteroid slammed into the earth and we had oceans according to evolutionists there's never been a global ocean on this planet but the Bible says God made the earth before the Sun Moon and stars and it was completely covered with water for two days and then he made dry ground and all the land plants and then he made the Sun Moon and stars it's according to the Bible peanuts have been in existence longer than planets and grapes have been in existence longer than galaxies by one day you can't harmonize the Bible with the Big Bang no matter how much time you put in there but you know there's something else that's significant I have noticed of all the Christians that I've interacted with or read about who accept the Big Bang they believe what the Bible says about the future of the universe but they don't believe what the Bible says about the past about the origin you see the evolutionary view of the universe isn't consistent of its future isn't consistent with the Bible either in the evolutionary view there's a couple of scenarios one is that that gravity is going to take over on that expansion and we're going to have a big crunch and then we might have another big bang and then another big crunch and then another big bang or the universe is going to keep expanding stars are going to explode in supernovas and eventually it's going to take a long time so you don't need to worry about it personally but all of the stars will become dead the universe will become nothing but cold random atoms but the Bible says there is going to be a heat death but it's going to be literal heat death and then there's going to be a new heavens to the new earth now my question for Christians who believe in the Big Bang is why do you believe what the Bible says about the future of the universe but you don't believe what the Bible says about the origin the universe why don't you believe what about what the evolutionists say about the future of the universe since you believe what the Bible says about the origin at what the evolutionists say about the origin of the universe I submit it is most consistent and most honoring to God to humbly believe what the Bible says about the origin and the future of the universe so all the scientists have the same facts they have the same stars and galaxies and the same planets and the same star dust they start with naturalistic assumptions they come up with those with the Big Bang and billions of years they start with biblical assumptions looking at the universe they see all kinds of evidence for design in a young universe the Big Bang is false because the naturalistic assumptions are false well so what does it really matter it does and I want you to listen to the words of Lawrence Krauss he's one of the most famous astrophysicists in America professor at Arizona State University and a very outspoken aggressive atheist he's speaking at elect he's giving a lecture at a conference for atheists and I want you to hear what he says the amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded and the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand it really is the most poetic thing I know about physics you are all Stardust you couldn't be here his stars have exploded because the elements the carbon nitrogen oxygen are and all the things a matter for evolution were created at the beginning of time they're created the nuclear furnaces of stars and the only way they can get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode so forget Jesus the stars died so that you could be here today anyway so forget Jesus the stars dies so you could be here today the lawrence krauss is a very very smart man I'm a mental compared to him but I submit to you that is foolish arrogance the Bible says the fool says in his heart there is no God fingerprints of God are all over the creation and he doesn't know that the atoms in his left hand came from one star that exploded and the atoms in his right hand came from another star that exploded I do agree with one thing he said in that statement he said this is the most poetic thing he knows in physics that's poetry that's not science well remember I talked about Neil deGrasse Tyson in that cosmos series in 2004 watched by millions of people it's now been produced into a really classy curriculum for the public schools and used in not only this country but other countries in the 8th episode he says this for high school students to ponder our ancestors worshiped the Sun they were far from foolish makes good sense to revere the southern stars because we are their children the silken and the robbers the oxygen and the carbon in our DNA the iron and our skyscrapers the silver and our jewelry were all made in stars billions of years ago our planet our society and we ourselves are Stardust Wow thrilling hear what he said our ancestors worshipped the Sun they were far from foolish makes good sense to fear the Revere the Sun and stars because we are their children you know you open the Bible and you read about the people of Israel the ancient people of Israel and you read about the New Testament times and the Greek philosophers and and these people worshipped idols well you know the Egyptians worshiped the Sun and we might in our arrogance as modern Americans or modern 21st century citizens of Earth we might think how ridiculous that people worship these things we still have idolatry going on today and you know what folks if you're here today and you have not personally done business with God if you've not confessed your sin to him if you've not agreed with him that you're a sinner and that you need a Savior you are in an idolatry you are worshiping some kind of God might be the almighty dollar it might be your personal affluence it might be your personal reputation it might be your grandchildren or your children I don't know what it is I was an idolaters the first 18 years of my life I was a really good church-going idolaters but I didn't come to Christ until the end of my first year at the University well I want to finish with one more little clip from an astrophysicist an astronomer at NASA so what is human existence how can you actually sum it up it turns out it's really pretty simple we aren't dead looking back up at the sky dead stars looking back up at the stars if you teach children that they're just stars that have died and exploded if you teach them that they should worship the stars there they're not going to come to the conclusion that they have any purpose or meaning to life they're going to come to the conclusion I'm the result of a long series of 13.8 billion years of time and chance and the laws of nature I'm an accident there's no right or wrong there's no God to whom I'm morally accountable and we are witnessing in our culture today the fruits of that philosophy which is not science it's it's religion the religion of atheism masquerading as science who said this atheism is so senseless when I look at the solar system I see the earth on the right at the right distance from the Sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light this is not this did not happen by chance this most beautiful system of sun planets and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent being who said that a scientific ignoramus somebody who was just a bible thumping christian who doesn't know anything no it was actually said by a man who is considered by many to be the greatest scientist who ever lived Sir Isaac Newton and I think he's absolutely right on this point the heavens declare the glory of God they are screaming a creator they're not screaming time and chance than the laws of nature and the Bible is the history book of the universe it tells us how it came into existence it tells us what it's going to what's going to happen to it and it tells us why each of us has a problem and what God has done about it through the Lord Jesus Christ and why we need him so most of the scientists say the Big Bang happened billions of years ago take my word for it God says I created the earth before the Sun it's about 6,000 years ago take my word for it Christians have to decide whose word they're going to take but so do non-christians because the question has eternal significance but it's not a choice between the Bible and science because real science confirms what the Bible says and so that's why we need that's why we made this museum that's why we have Answers in Genesis speakers because most of the world doesn't know that most of the world has been brainwashed and so that's why we've developed a lot of resources the answers book for teenagers and adults answer the 130 most asked questions what about dinosaurs where did Cain get his wife where'd the so-called races come from where the days of Genesis literal was the flood global and we've got answers books for the little kids grades ages 5 to 11 each one answers 20 questions with a one-page answer in this lecture biblical creation I show that the Bible really does teach young earth creation and that the various views in the church the gap theory the day age view the framework hypothesis they're all wrong there they're inconsistent with the Bible we've got a great video by Spike Bucyrus who used to work for the United States space program he went into that program in the military space program as an atheist and an evolutionist he left it as a creationist in a Christian powerful video I told you about kneeled across Tysons and that cosmos series been produced with DVDs and curriculum well we have an answer to that question in Cosmo switch goes through each of those and shows what's wrong what are the hidden assumptions so a great resource for high school students if they're being exposed to that curriculum Danny Faulkner on her staff as a layman's introduction to universe by design and then he's done is a two-volume work the created cosmos which looks at what the Bible says about everything the Bible says about stars and plan and then the expanse of the heaven which looks at the science side of the question and then the book six days by Ken Ham explains why the church can't compromise with those millions of years and what's wrong with those various old earth views coming to grips with Genesis a book that I co edited and contributed two chapters with thirteen other theologians defending the young earth view in an in-depth way biblically and historically that be a great gift to get your pastor to deepen his convictions or convince him is for Adam D is for dinosaur n is for Noah and any book or D or DVD that has a dot green dot on it you can combine those and make your own combinations we have pocket guides in various topics normally six dollars just two dollars here in the museum and one of those is on astronomy and then our answers magazine which comes six times a year beautiful full-color magazine for the whole family you can take out the center section for the little kids to read while you're reading the other and you can get the current issue for just 395 and test drive that but better would be to get a subscription and with you do you get with that subscription the first issue free and you get free the searchable digital description a subscription for as many devices as you want laptops iPads whatever and so if you're older and like me you like to read things on paper you can read the paper version and you can let your grandkids and kids search the electronic version so you can sign up for that in the bookstore and we've got a lot of articles about 10,000 on our website so a great resource and the Ark Encounter if you haven't been out there encourage you to go there and if you'd like a speaker to come to your church talk to your pastor and have them get in touch with us we'd love to come and do a seminar well I went a little longer than I expected but nobody fell out of a window like that guy in the New Testament so I'm glad about that I hope you have a great day at the Museum god bless you [Applause]

Channel: Answers in Genesis

Views: 129,830

Rating: 4.7037573 out of 5

Keywords: big bang, big bang theory, big bang theory exposed, big bang theory debunked, big bang exposed, big bang debunked, the big bang isn't true, the big bang never happened, dr. terry mortenson, terry mortenson, young earth creationism, big bang is a myth, creationism astronomy, astronomy and creation, answers in genesis, answers in genesis astronomy, answers in genesis big bang theory, bigbang

Id: _V58ma6ykP0

Length: 76min 9sec (4569 seconds)

Published: Thu Jun 21 2018