Comparing the Two Paradigms: Old Earth & Young Earth - Dr. Danny Faulkner (Conf Lecture)

I'm delighted to be here Thank You Thomas for the great introduction and again I'm contrasting the old young earth paradigms I think I want to generalize that to maybe young and old universe or creation paradigms and of course the aliens of the old paradigm could include old old age creationists of some sort theistic evolutionists and such and it also includes people who don't believe in creation of any kind of be evolutionist and so some what I would say perhaps would be more appropriate to them but you know there really are just two explanations of how the world came to be how we and a world around us came to be one of them is will be evolution which I will I will try to define very broadly as a purely natural purely physical process now if they're an evolutionary biologist here they would they would be jumping up and down and getting really upset and saying no no no that's not it it's variation in gene pool frequency or its descent with modification or something along those lines but you see evolution is not just about biology it's also in geology it's also the cosmic evolution it's astronomical evolution we also have societal evolution evolution of law evolution of marriage all these sorts of things and if you're going to try to define evolution broadly enough to encompass all those areas of human endeavor you're gonna have to do it very broadly and the point is evolution and it's hard if you really understand what it's doing what you're trying to do with it is you're trying to explain the world totally apart from a creator that's why I find theistic evolution to be oxymoronic because if you really comprehend creation you don't need evolution if you truly comprehend an evolution you don't need a creator that you can take take a mix them together as bow as well as you can mix oil and water they'll mix for a while but they won't stay mixed they will separate out very quickly the contrast to that of course is creation which I'm going to define as a supernatural explanation a process of how the world came to be and that too is awful broad perhaps too broad because someone might come away thinking that it's just any god or gods some sort of a non personal entity that's responsible for creation but I want to make it very clear I'm talking about the God of the Bible here I'm not talking about any other form of creation but I did want to kind of define it broadly in that sense and is it important what we believe about this is important what we believe about creation and I think the definite answer is yes because we're going to have a very different approach to how we interpret the world as a as a Bible believing Christians so when it believes in creation believes in a personal creator who is very much involved in the affairs of the world I'm gonna look at the world very differently than what others I see purpose and I see design and at this point in a in a talk like this I could go off in the design direction and talk about design or I could talk about other things that's about to do here you see one of the important discriminators here is a matter of time and the reason for that is the fact that evolution requires a very long period of time millions or even billions of years you see we don't see new forms of creatures coming into existence before our eyes we see pretty much the same creatures they've always sad we see some we see some changes within those groups or kinds but we don't see one type forming into a totally different new type geology we do we see all these mountains around us but we don't see mountains forming before our very eyes and astronomy we don't see much going on there other we see a lot of stasis and all of these things so if evolution is the true explanation of how the world came to be then the only resolution to that paradox is that evolution must be very very slow so that even over many human lifetimes no appreciable change is is really noticeable in the world but over eons of time those small changes will add up and become more obvious on the other hand creation was a fast process a couple of reasons one is the fact that there's no need for a great time if you really understand a nature of creation you can just have things come into existence pretty rapidly no great time required and someone may protest and say well wait a minute aren't you kind of limiting God couldn't God have created over billions of years and the answer is yes God could have created over billions of years but I'm not limiting God and I think God is limiting God and that because you see he's revealed his timing to us in Scripture we have six normal days and people much better qualified to address this issue of what those days mean or couldn't do better but I will just cut to the chase here and tell you that there are very good contextual reasons for believing these are normal days and then you could have to look at the genealogies and other chronological clues you find in the Bible and we find that the creation was maybe a little more than 6000 years ago now that's quite a contrast to say four and a half billion or 13.8 billion years ago which is what the age of the earth and solar system and also the age of the universe is supposed to be and you might want to try to stretch out the chronologies and genealogies a little bit but that's not going to get you anywhere close unless you do total damage to those historical Clues found in the Old Testament so it's my opinion that age ought to be a nice discriminator between two types of models here being an old aged creation or a new recent creation or be it evolutionary one whenever you have this division between billions of years and only thousands of years then age ought to be a discriminator on these sorts of things and so it's my job part of my job part of my job as a creation scientist is to attempt to build a creation model I've been working away at that for years and making some modest progress I think on this project but another one is to give people some good reasons to believe that the creation is not billions of years old is there evidence out there that that the suggests that the universe of the world the earth the solar system stars in general are much younger than billions of years and I think we can find that if you're looking in the right places and interpreting the data in the proper way now I've been doing this creation science stuff for four decades or more and I've come to to some interesting conclusions about this thousands or billions of years like long ago came to the conclusion that the answer to this has very little to do with physical evidence it has very little to do with physical evidence when you confront someone with difficulties with indications of billions of years and you provide them with evidence that suggests the universe is much younger than billions of years they tend to minimize the evidence you give and minimize the problems with billions of years because they have a vested interest they've got a lot of time and equity built into these things and it's very difficult to change their minds about in fact it's more of a hard issue change their hearts to then change the mind that's the order it ought to be in and you come into it a ton of assumptions any scientist who says that they're just objectively looking at the world and just finally looking the answers and the answers just plop out they don't really understand the nature of the whole enterprise here I think many people erroneously get the idea that scientists just were minding their own business they went out of the world they just started looking around how old is the world with no preconception at all and that evidence just simply led them to the conclusion it must be billions of years old is that pretty much the impression you get from a lot of science programs you watch and a lot of things you read out there that's certainly the impression I would get but that doesn't work because I've known too many scientists okay we have a ton of assumptions I have a ton of assumptions that come into this the only difference is I don't try to pretend that I'm a totally objective I will tell you what my biases are but many people are not even aware that they have biases if you're aware of your biases at least you can attempt to to compensate for those biases but if you pretend you don't have any then there's no way in the world you can properly compensate for that let me give you an example what I'm talking about though how that evidence has very little to do with it I'm a student of history if you've heard me speak much you'll hear me talk about the historical context for things it's interesting at the end of the 19th century toward the end of the 19th since 19th century biologists and geologists were concerned were convinced I should say that the world was at least at least a hundred million years old now what had led this them to this conclusion well it had nothing to do with going out and just making measurements and finding out well what do you know the age of the earth really is a hundred million years that had nothing to do with it this conclusion was based entirely upon the assumption of evolution as the explanation of how things came to be biologists looked after the diversity of plant and animal life and they estimate at the time that it would have taken at least a hundred million years to account for the diversity that we see now in order to get that you had to you had to assume some rate of evolution apparently to reach that conclusion it wasn't very quantitative it's very qualitative assessment at best and again I think this is a minimum figure most of them would have wanted more than that quite a bit more geologists similarly had made the same conclusion they looked at river valleys and say well how long did it take this river here to erode away this valley how long did it take this mountain to be pushed up and it's being pushed up now and we don't see it but it must be a very slow rate and we can multiply that and we get at least 100 million years again no quantitative analysis going on just simply an estimate based upon the rate at which evolution would have to occur in order for to account for these these effects well at the same time Lord Kelvin he was one of the most eminent physicist of the 19th century he looked at the situation and he looked at the at the earth and the age of the earth and he looked at the Sun and he got the age of the Sun he assumed that the earth started off with a molten mass and it cooled over time and as it cooled it service solidified and they still had some heat inside and he was going away from the inside to the outside and if you Dunnellon deeply into the earth we find a temperature increase we call that a temperature gradient with depth and from that temperature gradient would that was then measured and the rate at which heat was leaving the earth he was then able to calculate using some pretty well understood physics and some well understood properties of matter and mathematics that the maximum age of the earth was maybe 20 or 30 million years old at that point that's a maximum age because you see he assumed that the earth started a molten state if it didn't start in the molten eight than the Asian be far less than that wouldn't it so some maximum age 2030 million years now he did a thorough several thing for the son at that point people thought that the son was driving its energy from contraction of the Sun that's called a kelvin-helmholtz mechanism by the way astronomers today still think that mechanism works it would work in the early a stages of star formation and lives life cycles of stars and at other stages at various points but for the most part it would and I'll say a little bit about that in just a minute here but the the point is he then did this calculation for the rate at which the assuming the Sun started off as a very large distant mass and contracted down converting gravitational potential energy and he found out the maximum age of the Sun would be twenty to thirty million years no more than that again a maximum age it could be shorter than that so here we did two independent relatively independent methods one on the earth one on the Sun and they converged on the same value to within about a factor of two less than a factor of two and again a maximum age indicating something less than that yet many scientists at the time were persisting and believing that the world was much older than that at least three times older if not much longer so a couple of observations I can make here was that the the belief in the old earth at the end of the 19th century was based not it cause of the best evidence but in spite of the best evidence all numerical measures of the age of the earth and Sun at that time screamed that the age was far less than most scientists wanted but they ignored that thinking that there must be some other source for the sun's energy some other source for the Earth's internal heat as it turns out we later on did find sources for those nuclear fusion for the Sun in its core in radioactive decay for the interior of the earth that's not my point some people at this point said well they were wrong well fine they were wrong but might be missing my point my point is at the time based upon the data they had the quantitative measurements flatly contradicted the majority opinion concerning the age of the earth arrghh evidence had nothing to do with it that's my point the great age at that point was based entirely entirely upon the assumption of evolution again I want to be very clear I know that we have a different theory and understanding of the source of the sun's heat and the source of the Earth's internal heat today but that's not the point the point is people persisted in an incorrect belief beyond the age the limits could be given at that time merely because there are presuppositions were wrong I am convinced now has a situation changed much today people believe the earth is four and a half billion years old they believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old they they claim this based upon some measurements of data but a lot of that belief already preceded that data the belief in great age did and so again I don't think the situation's change they they trumpeting they Marshall up these different quantitative measurements but I don't think that that's really getting to the point of the question and again I want to reiterate the creator creation account in Genesis one it's very clear it's talking about the miraculous and again God I'm not limiting God by saying it had to be six days not too long ago because God has limited himself he has played told us revealed to us in the Bible that that how long this this took now you could argue some people argue well the Bible well we take two approaches to this question two ways one we could start with the Bible and the other one we can start with what people think science is not already it's a little bit of a little bit of a shifting argument going on here it's almost as if the Bible and the science are similar things in some way well they're not science is a human human inspired way of how we go about trying to study the natural world around us and we don't argue with most of science if you sit down and start thinking about the discipline of science there's very little way with quibble with I taught physics for many years and there really wasn't much of anything there I can argue with in physics it's whether an evolutionist Atheist the Christian a theist a Bible believing Christian the creationist didn't matter physics is physics when you get into astronomy my primary discipline much of that doesn't depend either there's a lot of descriptive astronomy a lot of operational astronomy if you will based him on what we see around the world right now and then there's this historical aspect and I had very little to quibble with there in the years I taught astronomy at the University there was relatively little that I taught that I disagreed with when I did get to evolutionary ideas and yes I did teach them of my classrooms I also felt free to critique those ideas I often said anybody came out of my second semester my astronomy class believe in the Big Bang must have not been paying attention in my class all right again we wait sometimes talk about the fact that there are two types of science and a lot of the critics a lot of the evolutionists don't like this but I think it's very appropriate we have what some of us call operational science that's the science of the here and now it's based upon how what we see around the world and then there's historical science or if you will origin science people talk here it's talking about past processes it's like forensic science you know you can put together this theory about what have happened in the past but how can you short of a time machine how can you actually go back into the past and test to see if that's exactly what happened the rules of the understanding and testing these two approaches are very different from one another I won't say that historical science is illegitimate I'll simply say that it's very different sometimes people will say disbelieving evolutionists like disbelieving gravity and that's nonsense we can make up different theories of gravity in fact people do that and you can go into the lab and test those different theories in fact there are experiments going on right now that do that and you can then figure out which theory is supported by the evidence and which ones are eliminated by the evidence but you can't really do that with origin science you can take the evidence as it exists say fossils existing in the present and try to deduce what might have happened in the past to explain those that's the way historical science works but it doesn't tell you exactly what happened you can't test the same way so we'll say that the Bible is not a science book and I happen to agree but you know what folks we're not necessarily talking so much science here we're talking about history and the Bible is a history book the first five books are clearly historical books you pose the Pentateuch plus you've got twelve more give me a total 17 but hold on a minute you've got the prophetic books and they contain a tremendous amount of history and each of those and then you go to the the poetic books one of them job is a historical book as well told in a poetic form so already oh but for the of the Old Testament books are history and then you have the furtive Gospels and the book of Acts and the New Testament they take a bulk of that those are those are history books many of the epistles contain historical clues as well book of Revelation well leave it up to you to decide how much of that is history okay that's a big debate I don't want to go to there my point is this the Bible is a book of history if we're going to talk about the history of the world then as a Christian behooves us to start with the Word of God so the length and age of creation again I keep repeating myself but it's very important I do believe the creation week was six normal days the genealogies and chronology suggest a little over 6,000 years and again question leading up the conclusion my introduction is can we find evidence of this and the answer I think is yes okay we have here an image of the moon and some of the stuff people earlier in a week have mentioned so I'm gonna go quickly through some of this and one of the things we find here is that the we have a magnetic field on the earth and the man named Thomas Barnes back in the 60s and 70s was talking about this and he was arguing then based upon what he knew about physics and what generates magnetic fields that these fields must decay and indeed measurements going back now a hundred and eighty years of the measurement theaters magnetic fields shows that is indeed decaying and from that he argued that the magnetic field of the earth must be very young and Russ Humphries name has been mentioned here he took up the mantle from from Thomas Barnes and he's actually improved upon it tremendously and to help us understand the Earth's magnetic field better but he's also used his his theory to to correctly predict the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune they were measured in 86 and 89 respectfully and he published his predictions in 1985 one year before the measurements of one in four years before the measurement the others and it turns out he got the measurements pretty good his predictions matched the measurements pretty well not nearly the the evolutionist predictions didn't match nearly as good they always say that you creationists don't make any testable predictions well I beg to differ thirty years ago Russ Humphries makes made some testable predictions stay tuned he continues to refine this and other creationists do as well here we have a image of the Earth Moon system we like to call it the Earth Moon system sometimes because the moon is rather large compared to the earth both in diameter it's only one-quarter the size of the earth the earth has 81 times more mass than the moon has but when you compare it to other satellites of the solar system the ratios of sizes and masses are pretty close here in the case of all the others the masses are generally thousands or even tens of thousands or millions to one rather than 80 one to one and the sizes they're little dinky things we looked at Jupiter the other night through the telescope and you can see the disk of Jupiter couldn't you could you see any disk on the satellites though another very tiny they are much smaller if you were looking at another plant from another planet looking at the earth you would see the the earth and you'd see the moon the moon would be about 1/4 the size of the earth one big difference though is be the albedo or reflectivity of the earth is much greater it's got a lot of water and clouds and they reflect much better and the atmosphere does too then the moon does in this particular image made for by one of the Voyager spacecraft on the way out on its mission they had to increase the contrast for the moon if they left it uncon Trastevere show up the moon's pretty dim compared to the earth the full earth on the moon i understand it's quite a sight to see it's 16 times bigger and a lot brighter it really floods the landscape with light well I think all of you most of you have been near the ocean you've emitter with the tides each day the water rises and falls twice high in low tide what you may not know is that there's a complex interaction that's going on between those we call it the title evolution that's okay to use that term evolution there the word there of the earth-moon system and what happens is the very complex interaction I don't have time to talk about the physics too much but the tidal bulge of the earth is lift raised here here's the moon you got the title bulge of the other moons over here the title bulge of the earth is like this the Earth's rapid rotation takes that bulge forward like this you got a bulge here and the moon right there well the moon pulls on that bulge it takes this near side of the Bulge close to it and kind of pulls it backwards like this and it takes the other one it kind of pulls it forward and since this backward one is is stronger than the forward one it acts as a break and trying to slow the Earth's rotation the earth is rotating this way and the moon's trying to grab that bulge and pull it back that direction it's very feeble the day is actually getting longer we've measured it from historical Eclipse record the the day is getting longer by about 16 10 thousandths of a second per century yeah you might have missed that okay it's real easy to miss 16 10 thousands of a second per century but it's measurable over many centuries all right so that happens but there's also an action reaction principle Newton's third law of motion so as the moon pulls on the earth the earth pulls back on the moon so this bulge pulls on the moon and the front side close to the moon pulls the moon more than the other side does and it tends to accelerate the moon forward and its orbit now the funny thing about orbital motion is when you accelerate an orbiting body forward making it go faster it actually climbs to a higher orbit and goes a little slower then which means the moon is slowly spiraling away from the earth so as the earth slows down its rotation the moon spirals out so each year the moon's getting a little farther out how how far out is it moving each year about four centimeters per year so if you want to get a good look at the moon you better do it soon all right because it's getting farther away all the time okay in my lifetime it's only gone through my height a couple of times it doesn't really matter that much but it does add up by the way how do we measure that well when we landed on the moon back forty-five years the late 60s early 70s oh and by the way we did land on the moon despite what some things on YouTube tried to tell us and pretty certain of that and when they when they went on the moon they put these reflectors on the moon special mirrors and they use these telescopes particularly one at McDonald Observatory and in West Texas they take this powerful laser and they put it hook to the telescope and they fire this laser beam through the telescope to the moon it hits those reflectors and comes back all about two and two-thirds second later and they time the difference how long it took the thing to come back and from that they can figure out how far away the moon is to like a fraction of an inch do you find that amazing I can't believe the technologies you have you could measure the distance to the moon to a fraction on an inch that's incredible oh it gets a little more complicated beyond that you see the moon's orbit isn't really constant to a good approximation it is but it's being tweaked all the time other things out there are yanking on it pulling it around other things in the solar system things going on with the earth it's got an elliptical orbits just horrendous like 20 terms yanking around on it but we understand those other terms pretty well and so they make corrections for all those terms when they get done they get about four centimeters per year again amazing they can do that so we can take that rate that's measured and we can then solve an equation so it's a differential equation because we know the rate of lunar recession goes as the inverse sixth power of the distance now if you know it's one over R to the six now if you know mathematics at all you know that's a very steep function of the distance that means that when the moon was closer to the earth in the past the rate of lunar acceleration was greater in the past much much greater so if you take this four centimeters per year and extrapolate back for a few billion years it's not really a problem but the problem is when you go into the past though you have to account for the fact that the acceleration was more than four centimeters sometime in the past it was five then it was six and it's ten there was a hundred then it's fifty there was a hundred and fifty there was three thousand and it just takes off as you go into the past and I've run the numbers on it and when you do that you find out they I say here less than the moon earth moon system is less than one and a half billion years actually it's more like 1.3 billion I've kind of sugar-coated it here and actually before you get back to a billion years ago height tides were about a mile high that means here in this part of Tennessee you would have had beachfront property twice a day well obviously nobody believes that so in reality you run into trouble long before you get back to a billion years I think something like a few hundred million years is probably more like it now this doesn't mean that the earth is automatically six thousand seven thousand years old does it but it would seem to eliminate anything that's more than about a billion years wouldn't it pretty clearly it would I would think and so if you're confronted with two possibilities four and a half billion years and six thousand years or anything else for that matter once you eliminate the four and a half billion years then what are you got left and we're talking here between those two choices that's not a false dichotomy or a false dilemma because there are only really only two on the table we're talking about if somebody wants to argue that the earth is 900 million years old let them go at it but I don't think anybody is making that claim now there is a response to this there is a response to evolutionists are well aware at least some of them are well aware of this problem and they have a very good answer for what's going wrong on here they they argue that we live at a time of unusually high tidal interaction that back after the moon in the earth formed there was this title walking that went on for about Oh three and a half four billion years where the moon's orbit didn't change at all you see the the the rate at which this the moon's spiraling away we can we can we can't morally model that we can take the measured rate and solve the differential equation to find out the length of time involved but you can't really model how it's done because it depends very complexly upon the way that the over the continents are arranged on the earth it depends upon the way the upper mantle is arranged on the earth all sorts of complex things which are beyond a really ability to measure and and then model appropriately but they argue that's exactly what happened that you had this thing happening so that there were kind of a resonance that occurred for three and a half almost four billion years and then well maybe maybe in the last 3.8 billion years or so about 3.8 billion years ago that that that interaction broke that locking and the moon this sort of took off and spiraled ever since then and when I've been confronted by this and I have been confronted by some Christians astronomers who do not agree that the world is very young they think it's four and a half billion years old I asked the question well that's fine but where is the evidence for this can you give me any evidence after all science is supposed to be a based upon evidence and they said yeah we got evidence I said well what is it and what they tell me they mentioned simulations people have done theirs they wrote a computer program to show how this might have happened and I said I'm sorry but that's a simulation you know it's make-believe it's pretend it shows how well the simulator wrote us code and I'm convinced you can take a code and write anything you want to prove your point if you don't then either a you don't understand what your task was or B or a pretty bad code or I don't know but but you can almost prove anything by by this but give me some evidence give me some predictions you have all this models you can test and they don't have any to do that to me that comes across as being special pleading or ad hoc you know what does that hawk mean in Latin means we're making it up all right well it doesn't mean that but that's what I think it means ad hoc means we're making it up it's special pleading and logic and I have to ask the question is this science I mean can you can you do a simulation and claim that this this is a science now this is the evidence and I'm concerned that in my own field of astronomy the simulations have taken over the simulations are done all the time now they just keep doing simulations for this and that everything else and that seems to prove that this must have happened and I think suspect it's happening in most other Sciences is too they just get carried away in all of this all right here we have the planet Jupiter we looked at the other night you could see you could easily see the two dark target bands right here on the planet the red spot kind of hard for us to see you need a bigger telescope and over here you have one of the shadows of one of the satellites moving across again I need a bigger telescope to see that back at the observatory at the edges in Genesis we have a telescope we could actually I've seen that a little shadow of a one moving across this was taken from a space probe though and here we have one of my favorite satellites in the solar system this is Leo I had a group the other day I was talking to I always get hungry when I look at this because it looks like a pizza to me you can see all sorts of nice little spots here and there and the interesting thing is there aren't any craters on e oh it's the only solid surface body and the solar system that has no impact craters and that's interesting how can you have no impact craters everything else has impact craters galore in many cases even the earth has impact craters well that coloration on here is due to two volcanic eruptions and the yellows and oranges and reds are due to sulfur compounds it turns out the volcanic by the way there's a nice little image of a volcanic eruption this is a little movie movie put together by one of the space probes we've sent to there and you can see the plume up here on the top it's going through eruptions right there the Voyager probe back in 1979 actually or 77 found I think a dozen volcanoes erupting simultaneously neo it's the most volcanically active body in the solar system or of active than the earth is however it's not molten rock there it's molten sulfur very hot sulfur that's what that yellow orange and red coloration sulfur different compounds can give him different colors by the way what is hot burning the sulfur aka brimstone that's right yo smells like hell alright so you've got this this plant this little satellite yo orbiting around around Jupiter well it's the most volcanically active body as I said and in order to have volcanic Li active body you need a source of heat inside of there and there are several possibilities one could be well it's primordial heat but if the that is from its creation but if the world is billions of years old it should have cooled off billions of years ago so for the evolutionist or the old ager that doesn't work you could argue the radioactive decay of elements but its density is way to a low for that's around three grams per cubic centimeter and that would preclude any significant amount of the heavier elements that would fission and produce enough heat to do that and you could argue and that's what most evolutionists would argue that that again the they would argue that it's from tidal flexing the the body as it moves around Jupiter very strong gravitational field would cause it to flex if you take a piece of the moon sort of does this all the time the earth does this every day it heaves up and down twice a day they the rocks beneath you heave up and down by a few feet you don't notice it but it does happen what if you take a piece of metal like a piece of wire and you bend it back and forth for a rapidly what happens it heats up because you're taking mechanical energy and converting it into thermal energy and they argue the same things going on here and I have a problem with this because I look at it and you have first of all the orbit of yo is extremely circular it's one of the most circular orbits you can imagine more circular than the Earth's orbit around the Sun of the moon's orbit around the earth also its inclination is virtually zero it's not bobbing up and down so that bulge on Jupiter can't really work on it there's some argument some of the other satellites are tweaking on it and moving a but there's a problem the title flexing really doesn't work one of our creation scientists to Wayne Spencer a few years ago look through this and it turns out when you start analyzing the numbers it doesn't work either that's the textbook answer that tidal flexing will take care of this but in actuality when you do the details the mechanism fails to explain for that so if you don't have tidal flexing and you don't have radioactive decay it kind of leaves you back to primordial which then puts an upper limit to how old this thing is and it can't be billions can't very be very many millions of years old either taking us back to again creation I think recent creation tying in to that the mentioning mentioning craters we have the planet Pluto actually the planet I'm sorry the icy it's hard to kill these old habits but we have the large asteroid or the dwarf planet Pluto and here's a close-up image of it made back two years ago with the new horizons image I think one of the reason why so many people like Pluto's because as far as long as you had never actually been to it and seen what it looked like it could be anything you want it to be like for instance on i-17 north of Phoenix you go up and it started going up in this little mountainous area there everybody driven i-17 north of met Phoenix there's a little there's an exit there for bumblebee anybody have seen the exit for bumblebee and I look at that and bumblebee is a wonderful place you've got peppermint trees you've got a merry-go-round with a gazebo with a band playing at kids playing in the street you got fruit trees you got a fountain you've got Springs in there and all sorts of cool things as a circus everyday and a parade every day I'm the mayor and they love me there I told this to somebody once who and he said he had been there and he said well don't go there you'll be disappointed so I'll never I'll never go to bumblebee because I want bumblebee to be what it is in my mind we've been mugged by reality we've been to Pluto we know what it looks like now by the way do you see Pluto here there's his neck there's his nose and it's right there in his mouth and there's his head I'm just I'm just saying okay interesting how many people see Pluto the dog there oh yeah a few of you do I see it it's pretty clear of course I can see constellations and all those stars up there I've got a great imagination so anyway what don't you notice on Pluto you don't see many craters in fact this Pluto head here doesn't seem to have any and you have a few over there and there's a there's a there is a very clear shortage of craters and one say there aren't any but there aren't very many on Pluto now you see everybody I do mean everybody expected crater - Pluto's surface to be totally covered with craters why well because most other objects in the solar system are covered with craters and where they're not such as on Io there's been reworking of some sort to change all of that and so consequently if Pluto doesn't have a lot of craters from impacts then it must have been reworked very recently but there's no body nearby - Title II flex it so it can't be that and there's no the density is only about two grams per cubic centimeter it's way too low to have radiometric radioactive decay to fission to heat the inside and if it's billions of years old it can't be primordial heat so the evolutionist at this point spent two years they don't know what to do with it yet but I look at that I'm saying well wait a minute if it's only thousands of years old God could have you know made it that way could have had volcanic activity on it because it has primordial heat I don't know but the thing is in retrospect I can I can account for that I can explain that maybe I didn't predict it but at least I can within my worldview I can actually understand why it's like that but the evolutions at this point cannot because it has to be close to four and a half billion years old and it has to have been reworked somehow but there's no mechanism for doing that so this too is evidence I think a fairly recent creation and ruling out billions of years here we have the planet Saturn this was the when I was growing up many of you were growing up though some of the older people I should say then this was the only planet had rings that all changed in the 1970s first they discovered Uranus had rings then they discovered Neptune had rings then they found out Pluto had rings they have pretty wimpy rings as it turns out you can't see them from the earth you can photograph them when you send a space probe there and also you can detect them sometimes from the earth by occultation measurements at least Uranus and Neptune you can Jupiter that's the wimpiest of them all and here we have Neptune it's a let's got it it's got the great dark spots sitting on it that's in very cool planet NOW rings I'll talk about the Rings in just a minute but I want to stop here and talk about the jovian planets for just a minute there are three g4 jovian planets Jupiter Saturn Uranus and Neptune you'll probably recognize those the four outer planets the four inner plants we call the terrestrials Mercury Venus Earth and Mars those are earth-like terrestrial means earth-like and Jovian means Jupiter like because they sent you they share common characteristics and what's very interesting is we can measure the heat coming off of these planets and Jupiter Saturn and Neptune give off more of more about twice as much energy as we received from the Sun Jupiter a little less than twice but Saturn and Neptune more than twice that's coming in the infrared we can calculate how much they absorb from the Sun and we can calculate we actually can measure directly the energy coming off and that's very interesting because where is that heat coming from if they are billions of years old this energy cannot be there anymore because it went if any eternal heat would have bled off a long time ago there's not enough density to account by radioactive cooling and certainly tidal flexing won't work on any of these people have tried to suggest that gravitational settling would happen but that should have happened a long time ago as well and so the conclusion most astronomers have reached is that their source of energy is a mystery officially it is a mystery they have no clue where the heat comes from consequently you don't hear much about that do you just want those little oddities another oddity is Uranus doesn't do that but you notice is a weird planet anyway why is it different from the others in so many ways I'm not sure I know but the evolutions certainly don't know of course it's only a mystery if they're very old if they're very young it's not a mystery at all now is it and again Saturn and Uranus it has a ring system Neptune as the ring system Jupiter does here is a Voyager image of one of the iranian ring system it's very different from from Saturn's ring system Saturn's ring system consists of broad rings with a lot of narrow gaps the I'm sorry okay the ring system here consists of broad rings and narrow gaps you're seeing Cassini's division here there are many other thousands of hundreds of hundreds or thousands of ring gaps in there but the other systems including Uranus are very different they consist of very narrow rings by with broad gaps in between that's the reason why they don't show up very easily from the earth they've got the Uranus coltd here blocked out and still a lot of light is bleeding through so all for the jovian planets have ring systems but we know the ring systems are falling apart how do we know that well we can do computations on the orbital motions and there's a lot of tweaking going on the other satellites of the system pulling on and yanking around that's where we have gaps there pulling material out in those different resonant positions and all of that and the also we have the Cassini and the Galileo probes in the pret and their location of Jupiter and Saturn and they actually can observe the Cassini can could observe and see changes taking place over a matter of a couple of years all the things going on you have meteoroids coming through and when they come in a high angle and hit this the ring particles they blow them out and so there's several mechanisms well-documented that are tearing these things apart and since they're falling apart so fast how long can they they they last well they certainly can't be billions of years in fact they may not even be a million years old Saturn's ring system is believed to be far younger than a million years it's a very young thing and and the order these ring systems of the other three are also relatively young they think that the other three are a little older because they've dissipated far more but Saturn if you hang around long enough we'll look like those other ring systems eventually now this is not a real rigorous argument against against long age in favor of recent age because there's a comeback it could be that there was destruction of a satellite or some other object you all this tweaking going on a satellite could be pulled in close enough to the planet to reach a region called the Roche limit and the Roche limit is the distance within close enough to a planet where tidal interactions of the planet itself will rip apart a body that's held together by gravity object like our own moon and most large satellites in the solar system are held together by gravity so they are pulled apart at that point their gravity is insufficient to overcome or to counterbalance the tidal interactions spreading this thing apart now for smaller things that are held by simply chemical cohesion some things are held like small satellites are held together by the chemical bonds between the parts of the rock that they're made out of they're not they're not subject to this they're too small for that to happen only when they're held together by gravity or they shred it apart but it's believed that if a ring if a particle that's held together by gravity gets close enough to the planet within the Roche limit it will be shredded and form a ring system so they could argue that all for the jovian planets have recently acquired a ring system by some object being shredded apart by its it's its title action but the question I have is how probable is that it seems to me to be very improbable because we just happen to live at a time where all four recently shredded up satellites just how many satellites that they had to start with and how many times does this happen in the past four and a half billion years now again this is a less rigorous argument the others but I think it starts to stretch the credulity just a little bit to believe this here we have a an image of comet hale-bopp and it consists of like any other come it does a nucleus down down here the nucleus is a few kilometers across it goes in a very long elliptical orbit around the Sun most the time it's far from the Sun where it's very cold far from the sunlight but when it gets in once in orbit to perihelion the closest approach to the Sun the sun's radiation sublimes the ices that make it up dislodge the dust forms the coma of the comet which you see down here and then the solar wind pushes the the gas particles or ion particles away from the Sun that's what this gas or ion tail is the dust particles are pushed by solar radiation that's the blue light you're seeing there so the Sun is over to the lower left note that the tail always points away from the Sun it doesn't trail behind like a horse's tail would it's always pushing away from the Sun if it's if it's leaving the Sun it's actually its tail precedes it as it moves outward now the Comets have very short lifetimes by the way the nucleus of comet hale-bopp was the largest nucleus we've ever been able to see in 400 years or so it's about 40 kilometers across about 25 miles most common nuclei are just a couple of three miles across it was a monster size anyway short lifetimes of comets every time they pass around they pass very close to the Sun they lose a significant amount of their material through evaporation or sublimation and knocks off a lot of dust as it does that also occasionally these things collide with planets we knew that that was a process that likely happened from time to time we never actually observed it until 1994 when the comet shoemaker-levy 9 hit this hit the planet Jupiter actually two years earlier on its way into the inner solar system passed close to Jupiter the tidal effect of Jupiter shredded it into about a dozen different pieces they rounded the Sun and they came back out and as they did they smashed into Jupiter this time one by one over about a week's period of time and with a small backyard telescope you could actually see these black spots on Jupiter they persisted for a few days and then went away as if nothing ever happened to him and 400 years of telescopic observation it's the first time we've seen a large impact like that we knew as a possibility now we've actually witnessed it and it's undoubtedly happened before so comets have short lifetimes because of evaporation because of collisions by the way the collision is a catastrophic loss at that point also you can have ejection from the solar system when these when Komets come close to the planets particularly Jupiter because it has so much mass and doesn't have to be real close by the way.the can be an energy transfer between Jupiter and the comet and if the Jupiter Robson orbital energy from the planet it shortens its orbit which means it comes in more frequently so it's more subject to the other two mechanisms so it speeds the process up that happens about half the time but the other half of the time it actually boosts the energy which puts it on it on a hyperbolic orbit and kicks it out of the solar system never to return and this has been observed many times many times comets come in and we know when they leave the inner solar system they're not coming back because they've gained enough energy to leave so all three of these mechanisms have been observed and so it's fairly easy to run the calculations and you'll find that the solar system the Comets we have must be far less than than four and a half billion years in fact they probably can't be any older than about a hundred million years probably less than that all of them so this is a pretty pretty low upper limit I believe and it would seem to eliminate the solar system being in the older than say a hundred million years and it could be far far younger like say six thousand years not a problem for us now again in so many cases we have here that's not escaped the notice of astronomers so they have a ready response back around 1950 yon Oort a Dutch astronomer suggested that there was a large reservoir of comets called the Oort cloud very far out from the Sun and these comets are orbiting so far out we can't see them they're very they're very dim and they orbit about and nothing happens until maybe a star happens to pass nearby or a large molecular cloud passes close enough and it it jostles the the orbits of these things some of them gaining energy lose loss to the Sun others losing energy causing the fall into the inner solar system so the idea is as the older comets die out new comets come in to replace the Comets that die off now this explains what we call long period comets supposedly long period comets roughly 200 years is the breaking between long and short period comets but it's not really the time that's involved it's the type of orbits that they have long period comets tend to have have orbits that are inclined in it to any amount to the solar system's plane there's a plane of the solar system the planets are in and long period comets can have any inclination from 0 up to 90 about half of them are pro-grade they go in the same direction around the Sun that the planets do the other half our retrograde going the opposite direction short period comets have low inclinations within about 20 degrees of the a of the plane of the solar system and they all go pro-grade all right and we know of I'll probably miss so the so they have the Kuiper belt is this resevoir kind of a toroidal shape doughnut shape distribution beyond the orbit of Neptune that produces the short period comets from gravitational perturbations well and the other day Andrew shared this quote and I'll share it again because he talked about this this is a great quote many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort cloud its properties its origins its evolution yet there's not yet a shred of direct evidence for its existence he wrote that with his co-author wife back in 1986 it's been three decades and I can tell you as a professional scientist professional astronomer the situation has not changed appreciably since then this is still true today though some people have tried to claim a few small objects and the very inner inner inner inner port portion of the Oort cloud the problem is how can you see these things they're so far out I always thought that science was supposed to be the study of the natural world using the five senses that is you can't see it smell it taste it touch it or hear it it isn't science no one has ever seen seen seen touch tasted hurt or smell the Oort cloud so I have to question whether it is a scientific concepts I would disagree with Carl here when he called it a science scientific papers on this as far as the Kuiper belt that gets tricky they have found a bunch of objects out beyond the orbit of Neptune some people call this the trans new tuna new tow DEP tuning objects or tinos for short some people say KBO's for Kuiper belt objects I prefer Tino's because they very descriptive that is operational science at its best KBO that is historical science perhaps at its worst on this front and what's interesting is they they claim that by the way Pluto is just one of the largest ones of these and I have to ask the question well if Pluto is a comet nucleus why have we never seen comets that big coming in I mean that would be the mother of all comets it's a lot bigger than anything we've ever seen before and there are other large objects out there also we have density for some of these things Pluto we know it's denser do you know the Pluto we know its density of its if its largest satellite share on and so forth and we I think we know a couple others now and their densities are about two grams per cubic centimeter 2.0 grams per cubic centimeter we also know what the composition of comets are and I've done this calculation several times I take the known composition of comets and I try to put them back together the pieces that they exist in and try to infer the maximum densities you could get and I get about at best one in a quarter grams per cubic centimeter ergo the large bodies were seeing we have densities for in the end the end and the T Nos cannot possibly be comet bodies and so that doesn't really work anymore well I think my time is almost up can I really quickly talk about the early faint son paradox okay we got a picture here of the Sun it's a cording to several evolutionary theories the Sun gradually brightens as it ages it this is based upon the physics of how we understand how stars work by thermonuclear fusion in their cores as you convert hydrogen to helium you lose you lose hydrogen gained healing it changes the meaning molecular weight the number of particles involved which changes the the volume and PV equals NRT the International the the ideal gas law and as you change the the volume change the pressure change the temperature when to change the temperature make the temperature go up it increases the rate of those nuclear reactions powering the Sun they're very sensitive to temperature which means you increase the output of the Sun as you do that it forces more radiation through the outer envelope of the Sun and the Sun grows in size a little bit and actually gets brighter with time that's based on well understood physics why how much is it brightened well since the Sun supposedly formed four and a half billion years ago it's brightened by 40 percent now if you go back to say three and a half billion years ago when life first originated on the planet it's brightened by 25 percent could you imagine if the Sun brightened by 25 percent what with the hand wringing we would have you wouldn't want to tell Al Gore about this he would have a heart attack wouldn't they so three 25% is pretty bad since life life supposedly arose well you can run the numbers and I have this would correspond to a 17 Celsius temperature increase on the earth it's interesting to know the the average temperature of the earth today is 15 Celsius so if it was 15 Celsius today and was increased by 17 Celsius what was it three and a half billion years ago when the earth first formed I know it's after lunch but what do you got it's negative - right all right which in real temperatures 128 degrees Fahrenheit all right so what would happen if the if the average temperature of the earth were a couple of degrees below freezing like that what kind of earth would we have it would be a snowball or ice ball earth and you'd have a glacial epoch that would be the mother of all epochs and it would never end the entire earth would be iced over and it would never get out of that because the high albedo that it has nobody believes the earth was like that three and a half billion years ago in fact they think the temperature of the earth has been pretty constant with some fluctuations over that period of time so how in the world did you maintain the same temperature over all this time well over the past 20 years I'm aware of at least four different explanations for this when you come with four different explanations it tells me that the others didn't work obviously the most common to believe is that the earth started off with a lot of greenhouse gases and with time the Earth's atmosphere changed it evolved so you have less greenhouse gases so it's kind of reversed what they're saying is going on today you needed a lot of greenhouse gases early on to keep the planet warm and then as the Earth revolves it becomes cooler and cooler and what you have are two two processes going on gradually to exactly compensate for each other with no feedback mechanism between the two would you believe any any non feedback mechanism tuned mechanism to working independently going on for three and a half billion years so they exactly compensate for each other do you find that hard to believe I find that very hard to believe and so I I think this doesn't work and again where's the evidence for all these things well they've done simulations again of course the simulations always save the day on these things well folks if the world is only thousands of years old the the earth is so the sun's hardly increased its output at all and it's not a problem at this point so those are just some of the evidence as I see an astronomy that suggests the world is far far younger than most scientists seem to think I thank you today for your York attention your attendance

Channel: Is Genesis History?

Views: 34,562

Rating: 4.6381259 out of 5

Keywords: creation, astronomy, creationism, science, bible, stars, time, earth, genesis, old earth, young earth

Id: AVvLvwrfK5g

Length: 57min 25sec (3445 seconds)

Published: Wed Oct 25 2017