The Big Bang Theory & the Bible ?...Discoveries 2017 #3 Part2

well nothing exploded how can nothing explode well nothing can explode and did explode and that's why there's everything rather than nothing does this make sense though is this really possible can you really go from nothing to everything because think about it nothing can create what nothing nothing can do nothing from nothing nothing comes as RC sprawl one said if they were ever once truly nothing there could never be anything which is profound if you think about it and as dr. Phil Fernandes once said you can't tell me nothing made everything I know to much about nothing now sometimes people will say well yeah but if the big bang yeah okay it doesn't look good but if you wait long enough even something which is extremely improbable will eventually occur well that doesn't help you hear something coming to nothing is not nearly and probable it's impossible it doesn't matter how long you wait which is impossible by definition will never occur will it nor does that apply to the Big Bang anyway because the Big Bang supposedly made four things matter energy space and time there was no time before the Big Bang according to the model itself therefore you couldn't wait for the Big Bang to occur because there's no time within which to wait nor was there a place to wait anyway there's another big problem that the Big Bang model has in that it violates some very fundamental principles and physics for example if you take a physics class one of the first thing you'll be taught is a principle called the conservation of matter and energy in other words the total amount of matter and energy matter being physical stuff matter and energy in the universe is conserved it never changes this is sometimes called the first law of thermodynamics so you can modify the relative amounts of matter and energy in either direction but the total combined amount of the two never changed what do I mean by modifying the relative amount well it is now understood that matter and energy are equivalent in the sense that there are different forms of the same thing you may be familiar with the equation e equals mc-squared e stands for energy M stands for mass from matter the amount of stuff you have and then C is the speed of light a very large number so this tells us the a little bit of stuff contains a whole lot of energy so you can actually convert matter to energy and actually can go the other way to energy to matter now the most efficient way we know to convert matter to energy is in a nuclear explosion a little bit of stuff releases and converted is converted into a lot of energy we can go to the other direction too we can take a lot of energy and convert it into a little bit of stuff we do that in particle accelerators we take little pieces of matter and get em zipping around it close to the speed of light and smash them together more matter comes out of the collisions then went in and I don't mean I don't just mean the number of particles I mean the amount of physical stuff there now have we created matter from nothing no because that violates physics what we're doing is converting their energy of motion their kinetic energy as they're moving around into matter so we can convert matter to energy and we can convert energy to matter but we can never create either one because that would violate physics and we see this principle in our lives every day think about this why do you need to eat food every day regardless of how difficult that process might sometimes be because your body needs energy can't make it from nothing because that would violate physics so you have to get it from the chemical energy stored on the food of course you have to get it in your mouth first but that's a different story why do you get a bill from the power company every month because your appliance does need energy to run can't make it from nothing because that would violate physics so you have to get it from the power company which also can get it make it from nothing because that would violate physics it has to get it from the chemical energy stored in coal or the gravitational potential energy stored in flowing water or solar energy from the Sun which also can make its energy from nothing because that would violate physics so it has to burn hydrogen and helium and those sorts of things on and on it goes this principle is very fundamental just in life everywhere in fact you couldn't be walking watching this presentation tonight if this president if this principle weren't true because some of the principles of electronic circuit design rely on this principle being valid so again we can't make either energy or matter from nothing because that it's physics all we can do is convert what's already there to the other form but if you think about this the Big Bang model violates this principle and the largest possible scale it says all the energy matter in the entire universe popped into existence from nothing well that's a problem this principle is so fundamental to physics that as I mentioned earlier if you take a physics class it's one of the first things you'll be taught and most of the problems you solve on homework or tests or whatever is basically applying this principle to the situation at hand and that problem and then solving it if you ever solve a problem in in physics class in a way that violates this principle is automatically wrong because this permeates physics yet the Big Bang violates it on the largest possible scale now some second the cosmologists will tell you yes this seems like a problem for us doesn't it yes it seems like everything coming out of nothing is a major violation of physics but that's not really a problem because on a net basis the entire universe is actually nothing therefore the Big Bang didn't actually create anything and so we're not violating physics with our model now first of all the universe doesn't look like nothing does it now they're making this claim because they say they can mathematically model the universe in such a way that all the matter and energy adds up to some large number and then all the gravitational potential energy adds up to some other number which is negative and they do it in such a way that the two numbers are the same so if you have a positive number added to a negative number what do you get zero so secular cosmologists will tell you that on a net basis the universe actually doesn't contain any matter or energy it's nothing that's how the Big Bang could create it well it doesn't actually work and I'm not going to go to an explanation why not here tonight if you've heard that explanation from the Big Bang side of the controversy then you can come talk to me afterward and I'll explain why that is not true but for the rest of you who aren't interested we're going to move on tonight and just point out that other people say yes the whole idea of everything from nothing is a problem so everything he didn't really come from nothing everything really came from a quantum field there was a vacuum a quantum that have a vacuum of space and then there was a quantum fluctuation in empty space and that's where the universe came from so this avoids the problem of everything coming from nothing or does it were the core the vacuum with the quantum field didn't it come from that had to come from somewhere too right so all you've done is move your problem one step backward did the vacuum of space come from nothing well if so you just got the same problem you had a moment ago and as this author points out by the way my quotes are from secular authors that's probably obvious but I wanted to make that clear this cosmology just said a more fundamental problem is that this scenario does not really explain the origin of the universe a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum assumes that there was a vacuum of some pre-existing space and we now know that vacuum is very different from nothing vacuum or empty space has energy in tension it can bend and warp so it is unquestionable unquestionably something and another secular cosmologists said this from the point of view of general relativity empty space is unambiguously something according to general relativity space is not a passive background but instead a flexible medium that can bend twist and flex a proposal that the universe was created from empty space seems no more fundamental than a proposal that the universe was spawned by a piece of rubber it might be true but one would still want to ask where the piece of rubber came from so you see the problem so far that the universe came from nothing that violates physics on the largest possible scale if you're gonna say it came from a vacuum of the quantum field in it well since a since the vacuum is also something then that raises the question where does something come from they did come from nothing before that if so you have the same problem back again don't you so some secular cosmologists say well yes that too doesn't work therefore here's the explanation there has always been something there was eternally a vacuum that had the capability of quantum fluctuations and that's where the universe came from well that doesn't work either you may be avoiding that first violation of physics that we discussed because now you're not having anything come from nothing now it's always been there if there's always been something but now you're violating a different part of physics and this is called the second law of thermodynamics and so to illustrate this I like to use coffee coffee cosmology in a sense to make a point here if you have a hot cup of coffee and leave it on the counter and you don't drink it and no one else does what does it do it gets cool cools off more specifically the heat within the cup goes into the room and the heat doesn't vanish right because remember matter and energy are conserved you can't create matter and energy and you can't destroy it so the energy doesn't disappear it just goes into the room so the room gets a little bit warmer and the coffee gets cooler until though it's all at the same temperature right so if you then walk into a room knowing that that's how this works if you see a hot cup of coffee on the counter how long has it been there short time or a long time short time why is that because if it was a long because it's still hot if it were a long time it would have cooled off already could the hot coffee sit there eternally long without ever cooling off well no that's not how the universe works right so in a sense hot coffee gives you a form of clock you don't know exactly how long it's been there but you do know it can't have been there forever we can extend that reasoning to the whole universe people offering this as an explanation want there to always have been something eternally well the coffee analogy tells us you can't have something always be there eternally because the amount of energy is always going to dissipate you're not if the universe cannot be eternally old because if it were there would no longer be anything hot within it and do we know anything that's still hot in the universe that hasn't cooled off yet stars right if you look in this the sky and you see stars they haven't cooled off yet now every star will eventually cool off or blow up or meet some other fate but every star is going to go eventually so that means that the universe were eternally old there would not be any stars anymore because they all would have cooled off or blown up or whatever infinitely long ago now some people would say yeah but you can form new ones well yes but that also takes energy of which there's a finite amount available that too would have been used up infinitely long ago if the universe were eternally all that means the universe can't be eternally old Kennan nor can there have been this eternal vacuum with the capability of creating universes because that - its energy would have dissipated it would no longer be able to make anything quote-unquote so we see then the universe can't be eternally old nor can reality itself in a sense be eternally old due to this principle because there's still concentrations of energy within it so combine these two principles together and you see that any sort of atheistic cosmogony any kind of history of the cosmos that denies God if you're gonna say that you have to choose which part of physics you want to violate the first law of thermodynamics says the universe can't have a beginning therefore it must be eternal the second law of thermodynamics says the universe can't be eternal therefore it must have had a beginning so you have to choose again which which fundamental part of physics you want to deny with your atheistic history the only way out of this trap is to say there's a supernatural creator outside of the laws of physics who created the universe for his own purposes that works fine with physics the atheistic cosmogony z' do not so the Big Bang model and it's very core violates some very fundamental principles and physics it has a lot of other problems too in fact we won't even have time tonight to talk about all of them but we will cover a few for example the Big Bang model says that the universe should be full of what are called magnetic monopoles little magnetized particles that only have one magnetic pole either north or south but not both now if you've ever experimented with magnets like in school or something you'll know that every magnet you ever had has a north and a South Pole and if you break it up into pieces all the pieces have two poles also right remember that the Big Bang model law says there should be magnets with only one pole and that in fact the universe should be full of them they've been looking for 50 years and haven't found one yet this alone by the way is sufficiently challenging for the Big Bang model to be sufficient to disprove it this is a fatal problem right here this one alone another fatal problem is called The Horizon problem turns out the universe is equal in temperature any direction we look in fact opposite sides of the universe are at the same temperature that cannot be according to the Big Bang model this too is a fatal problem for the model all by itself a third problem is called the flatness problem big the Big Bang excuse me the Big Bang predicts that the universe should have massive curvature geometrically either positive or negative turns out the universe has neither its geometrically flat and if you worry what that means exactly it's just a geometric measure that cosmologists use point is the Big Bang says massively this way or that way but it's neither it's right down the middle something which the Big Bang model says should not be yet it is our sick of the cosmologists aware of all these problems well yes they are these last three they claim however have been solved so let's talk about this for a little bit inflation says like we talked about that there is first of all this quantum fluctuation which we've already seen doesn't work impossible then the baby universe underwent a period of rapid expansion called inflation where the universe popped into existence and then kaboom blew outward explosively in size again multiple times the speed of light against gravity and then the universe decided well that wasn't such a good idea to do that anymore and the expansion slowed down to a much lower rate ask a physicist what drove this process of inflation you'll be told to say particle called the inflow time well has anybody ever seen in infla time the answer is no is there any room within standard particle physics for in in photon no is there any reason at all to believe in the inflaton except for the fact that the Big Bang needs it to solve some of its problems also know so rather than accept the fact that the data disprove the Big Bang model cosmologists are invoking something that's completely outside of physics in order to explain it away well that's not really a good science is it as this author admitted what drove inflation well nobody knows physicists have suggested different models to describe the inflating universes but all pardon me the inflating universe but all the solutions are mathematical conveniences with no particular physical basis all the theories of inflation amount to proof that we don't have one good theory yet says this astrophysicist so if you look into inflationary theory I mean it's very complicated and there's lots of math but all it is basically is physicists writing down equations describing what the universe had to have done in order to rescue the Big Bang model from the evidence problem is you can write whatever equations you want that doesn't mean the universe actually did that or for that matter that those things are even possible to have happened in the first place as this secular cosmologists said inflation's theoretical underpinnings maybe rather tentative the inflaton after all is a hypothetical field whose existence has yet to be demonstrated in other words it's just something we made up its potential energy curve is positive our researchers not revealed by observation the Implanon must have somehow had very special properties and so on so in addition to these theoretical problems that inflation has also turns out that the latest data from the CMB are causing a lot of problems for the whole idea as this author said the models most favored by their data the CMB data when combined with early results suffer from exacerbated forms of initial conditions and multiverse problems and they create a new difficulty that we call the inflationary unlikeliness problem that is the favor the necessary in float on potentials are exponentially unlikely according to the logic of the paradigm itself interesting that one of the authors of this paper paul steinhardt is one of the original authors of inflationary theory one of the people who came up with this idea in the first place is now rejecting it and is one of its most vocal critics pointing out that it has not withstood actual evidence as we've discovered more the theory has been discredited so we have something that's outside of physics that's never been observed that does amazing things like make the universe expand faster than the speed of light against gravity and that is exponentially unlikely according to its own logic what do we call such a thing a miracle basically right you see a little hypocrisy going on here because to try to solve some of their problems secular cosmologists are invoking essentially a miracle moreover the BIGBANG universe does not fit I should say the Big Bang model does not really fit the universe we see anyway the universe has a tremendous amount of fine-tuning in it and I have a whole presentation just on this topic which obviously we don't have time to do fully tonight but we'll cover a little bit entire books have been written for example on how finely tuned for life the earth is and how unique it is in that respect some of these books are from secular authors by the way this doesn't matter this isn't merely a matter of Bible believers talking about such things our Sun for example actually meant back up a minute I'm not going to talk about the earth because as I said there's entire books available to you let's talk about a few things that are typically not discussed in these circles who gave thanks to the Lord when they woke up this morning for having created such a finely tuned Sun that's very unusual though usually ask that question no one raises their hand why is that well we take we tend to take the Sun for granted don't we I mean it goes up and it goes down and we go about our business well it turns out though the Sun is actually very unusual a 30 year study of the photosphere was concluded not that long ago they found out that the Sun is essentially constant in temperature its energy output over the entire 30-year study varied by less than one tenth of one percent now again probably few if any of us were thankful for that recently because we don't think about such things partially the problem is we don't have a contact for this the context is that stars don't act this way stars are not these nice quiet things that give constant energy output stars are typically very violent objects you don't typically want to be orbiting around basically every star we've seen even sun-like stars even the stars that are the most like our Sun as we've been looking at them and studying them even ordinary solar-type stars turn out to have super flares roughly once every hundred years or so what is a super flare well you may be familiar with the fact that the surface of our Sun is not just this smooth thing it's very active and doing a lot of really cool stuff which we don't have time to talk about well you probably know that every once in a while in the news they'll talk about a coronal mass ejection accompanied by a large flare and they're worried that if this might hit the earth and might maybe at worst to affect the power grid or knock out a satellite or something because some of these can get pretty big here's the earth compared to one of these things you see these are large but typically this these don't affect the earth very much there's only been a few cases in history where there's been really much of an effect at all now multiply one of these by 10 million times that is a super flare and sun-like stars normally produce super flares about once a century think about how frequently that is any planet orbiting around a star that's undergoing super flares of course not a very pleasant place to be yet as this article points out sun-like stars normally produce a bright super flare about once a century but why if super flare has not occurred on the Sun in recorded history is unclear well it's not unclear at all go read your Bible Isaiah 45 says thus saith the Lord that created the heavens God Himself that formed the earth and made it he established it and created it not in vain he had a purpose for doing so he formed it to be what inhabited so it found if an omniscient omnipotent benevolent God created the Sun to sustain life on earth along with other purposes like declaring his glory we shouldn't be surprised that that's what it does very well turns out though our discussion to fine-tuning could actually be extended to the whole cosmos itself the entire universe for example let me get it getting ahead of myself here a few years back some secular scientists got together and said what are what what fine-tuning was necessary for the Big Bang to produce the universe we see today and they were specifically addressing the flatness issue that I brought up earlier the answer that got was at the bit to produce our universe the Big Bang had to be finely tuned to 1 out of 10 to the 60th power that's a 1 with 6000 so let me explain what was going on here they realized that if the Big Bang had made a little bit more stuff now reality the Big Bang didn't make anything because it can't make anything but they believed it did they realized that if the Big Bang had made a little bit more stuff that the early universe was very sensitive to the amount of material in it in a little bit more stuff in the beginning would have triggered runaway gravitational collapse and everything would have fallen into black holes and galaxies couldn't afford stars couldn't form planets couldn't form life couldn't form we wouldn't be here on the other hand if the early universe I contain just a little bit less stuff than the Big Bang supposedly made then then our universe has is what I should say a little bit less stuff than what our universe currently has then they would have been running away expansion galaxies couldn't have formed then nor could stars planets life and again we wouldn't be here so a little bit extra stuff or a little bit less stuff than what we currently see in the universe means we wouldn't be here to see it either way the study showed that the fine-tuning this represented was one out of 10 to the 60th power in other words there's since there's 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe fine-tuning - 10 to the 60th power which is what they discovered meant that the windowed are the margin for error in a sense in the early Big Bang was 10 to the 20th atoms that's the same amount of matter as a single grain of sand in other words if the Big Bang had made a single extra grain of sand worth of material anywhere in the entire universe then that runaway gravitational collapse would have happened everything would be black holes we wouldn't be here to look at it conversely if it had made one grain of sand less then the universe currently has anywhere in the universe one less grain of sand worth of stuff then that would've been runaway expansion we wouldn't be here so this random event that happened without a creator without a designer without a fine tuner well had to be finely tuned to a single grain of sand for us to be here that's a pretty serious problem if you want to deny God isn't it then the problem got worse today the fine-tuning is up to ten to the hundred and twenty third power that's one out of this number as this quote points out our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount life as we know it will be impossible some of the fine-tuning appears extreme enough to be quite embarrassing for example we need to tune the dark energy to about a hundred and twenty three decimal places to make habitable galaxies okay let's talk about let's instead of just throwing numbers around let's use the analogy again 10 to the 80th atoms in the universe but now the fine-tuning of this allegedly random Big Bang was 10 to the hundred and twenty third power that means that the fine-tuning the precision is now less than a single grain of sand it's less than an atom within a grain of sand it's this fraction of the mass energy of a single atom and that scientific notation expressed in numerical form it's this that fraction of the mass energy of a single atom is how finely tuned this random Big Bang event that happened without a creator without a designer without a fine tuner had to be as this very secular physicist said this is a cataclysm for physicists and the only way that we know how to make sense of it is through the reviled and despised anthropic principle which is the idea that the universe somehow had to form in a way that mankind could be here and what does that imply that implies the creator and you tell what he thinks of that idea by the adjectives he is using right now the usual explanation for this is called the multiverse saying that yes our universe is ridiculously finely tuned but we can explain that here's why there is an infinite number of universes out there turns out according to secular folks and in an infinite number of universes even the most unlikely one will be out there somewhere we just happen to live in such an unlikely universe as off-the-charts unlikely as ours is the infinite number explains it I don't want to take the time now to dig into that explanation as you might guess it's wrong but if you want to hear more about that you can bring it up in QA for now I'm going to move on and conclude this part of the presentation with the discussion of entropy the Big Bang has an entropy problem even far beyond the other problems that we've already talked about so let's talk about that if my clicker would cooperate there we go let's say that everything I've talked about this evening all the problems with the Big Bang aren't actually problems let's say something actually could come from nothing let's say all the other problems we discussed aren't there turns out even if you assume that you still don't get today's universe when something came out of nothing if there was a vacuum and there was a fluctuation within it mathematically you don't get our universe from that you get something else instead for example let me actually me back up a minute if you assume something could come out of nothing if you assume there was a vacuum and matter popped into existence from within it what would you assume popped into existence you say it probably particles right just maybe protons and neutrons little bits of matter again this is impossible but we're not holding that against them right now you would be it would be far less likely for atoms to pop into existence for nothing why is that because atoms are actually very difficult things to make there's a force that is trying to drive the particles of nucleus apart there's another force that holds it to together but the one that holds it together only works over a very short distances so when a nucleus in an atom already exists it can stay together but if for some reason the particles get even a little further apart they immediately get driven farther apart preventing an atom from existing that's why for example heavier elements are unstable and decay radioactively like the nucleus of a uranium atom for example is very big there's a lot of particles in it and so so the particles on this side are farther far apart from the ones on the other side so their bond is fairly weak so a uranium atom for example will spontaneously lose particles occasionally and decay into other elements this is also why nuclear explosions are possible because these large nuclei the large nucleus of these things are unstable not tremendously unstable but almost there they want to break apart but they're barely being held together so if you smash one of them on the neutron they will break apart and then you goes completely that's a technical physics term to plooey so point is if something could pop out of nothing you would expect particles you would not expect atoms because that is much more unlikely you'd have to have the entire atom themselves pop into existence as atoms which is extremely unlikely for particles to doing that at random far less than would you expect something like the US Declaration of Independence to pop into existence from nothing complete with all the signatures and so on let me say well wait a minute why not you might put my question if you thief you think something can pop into existence out of nothing that why not this it's just matter right well you wouldn't expect it though because it's a very specific and very complicated and thus a very improbable arrangement of matter right so even though the atom scenario is very unlikely you would still have to accept that over the u.s. declaration scenario because that's far far less likely hopefully you're all still with me I know you're wondering where I'm going with this but now we'll talk about it this is an analogy for what's happening with the entire universe if you to make one from nothing turns out that Big Bang universe is so mathematically unlikely in terms of how improbable the early arrangement of matter had to be that other arrangements of matter are far more likely because they're far less complicated even something as complicated as the human brain is actually far less complicated than the Big Bang would be this has created a problem among secular cosmologists called the Boltzmann brain problem the early Big Bang universe had extremely low entropy entropy is a mathematical measurement of probability therefore the early universe was extremely extremely improbable it turns out that if something could pop into existence existence out of nothing you're actually far more likely to get a human brain then you are the early universe as described by the Big Bang model this is called the Boltzmann brain problem with in secular cosmology there's an article that talked about it it could be the weirdest and most embarrassing prediction in the history of cosmology if not science if true it would mean that you yourself are more likely to be some momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space then a person with a real past in an orderly star spangle cosmos your memories and the world you think you see around yourself are illusions you're not actually sitting in this room right now according to this problem you popped into existence a few seconds ago as a human brain in the midst of nothing it's only you now you may think well I have memories of my life up until this point well no your brain had to have the molecules arranged somehow they just happen to be arranged in such a way that you have all these false memories built into you similarly this room doesn't exist either that's just part of the illusion not that any of this matters anyway because you're about to fluctuate back into the void in a few more seconds going on this bizarre picture is the outcome of a recent series of calculations that take some of the bedrock theories and discoveries of modern cosmology to the limit the basic problem is that it's hard for nature to make a whole universe in other words the early Big Bang universe is mathematically off-the-charts unlikely it's much easier to make fragments of one like planets yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even in the most observed and troubling example a naked brain floating in space nature tends to do what's easiest from the standpoint of energy and probability and so these fragments in particular the brains would appear far more frequently than full-fledged universes or than us or they might be us Alan Guth the cosmologists at MIT and by the way he's one of those prominent cosmologists in the world who agrees this abundances who agrees this overabundance is absurd pointed out that some calculations result in an infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain making it quote these are his words infinitely unlikely for us to be normal brains unquote so the Big Bang ultimately says if you take the math to its full conclusive conclusion which they're reluctant to do infinite number of both of these free-floating quote unquote Boltzmann brains for every normal brain so the chances of you being real are one of excuse me of you sitting in a real room in a real universe are one out of infinity what do you get when you divide by infinity anybody remember zero so the Big Bang model if you take it to its logical conclusion says there's a zero percent chance that the universe is real because instead you're just a Boltzmann brain now this does not mean that you're a brain floating alone in the universe because there is no universe it's just you now you probably think this is ridiculous right that's because it is but that is what the model says this comes out of the work of a physicist named looked at Boalt some Boltzmann thus these are called Boltzmann brains this issue with in secular cosmology and this is a known issue I know that some of you are thinking that I'm making all this up but I'm not for example here's a paper published in the cosmological literature this is a typical observer in the multiverse is a Boltzmann brain in the eternally inflating vacuo observers are infinitely more likely to be Boltzmann brains then honest folk like ourselves this paper I know you probably can't read it from there says the most likely fluctuation consistent with everything you know is simply your brain fluctuating briefly out of chaos and then immediately equilibrating back into chaos again this is sometimes called the Boltzmann's brain paradox and cosmologists i've been trying to solve this problem for quite some time avoiding a Boltzmann brain domination and holographic dark energy models is the name of this one a note on Boltzmann brains sinks in the landscape Boltzmann brains in the cosmological constant problem I like this one can the Higgs boson save us from the Menace of the Boltzmann brains I did dig deep into the cosmological literature to find these papers by the way they don't like talking about this in public would you yeah if this is what your model said Boltzmann brains and the scale factor cut off measure of the multiverse return of the Boltzmann brains this was after somebody had proposed a solution then they said yeah that's a good idea and then they realize wait it doesn't actually solve it so the Big Bang universe ultimately says the universe isn't real again taking the model to its logical conclusion which nobody really wants to do because it shows how ridiculous the whole thing is I mean who heard about Boltzmann brains in the last planetarium show that you went to or the Science Museum or science magazine or TV show whatever they don't talk about that stuff right but that's what the model ultimately says so what does this mean well the Big Bang model ultimately says that you're a Boltzmann brain nothing else is real it's just you there is no universe and if there's no universe then there's no beginning to the universe right which means the Big Bang never happened so the Big Bang model says the Big Bang didn't occur the Big Bang model disproves itself so when secular cosmologists when atheistic scientists think they have science to use as this great weapon against the Bible in reality the only weapon they have is this one closing thoughts our culture likes to portray the creation issue as being religion versus science that we have blind faith in a book and they have science fact data logic etc no the science is on our side not theirs if you actually take their model their models to the logical conclusion it's totally absurd hopefully that's clear by now it's not merely wrong it's absurd science is on our side not theirs the problem is the culture isn't totally mischaracterizing what's going on here and brief note a lot of Christians think we need to use the Big Bang to justify the Bible they say well science proves the Big Bang happened and it shows that the universe had a beginning so this is a good thing for us that supports Genesis actually no it doesn't support Genesis there's a lot of theological problems if you try to shoehorn the Big Bang into the Bible or worse modify the Bible to fit the Big Bang model but moreover we don't need the Big Bang model to prove the universe had a beginning anyway you can do that with a cup of coffee right heat flow go outside look at the Stars that tells you the universe can't be eternal which means the universe had a beginning so we don't need the Big Bang model for that nor do we want to use such an incorrect model anyway because in the beginning God created the heavens on the earth not as described in the Big Bang model but as described in the Bible the heavens did not declare that a Big Bang occurred the heavens declare the glory of God and that firmament shows the work of his hands brief mention of resources here if you like the rather unusual perspective on astronomy that you've received here this evening I have a free email newsletter that you might be interested in it's available on my website which I will show you in just a moment you won't get spammed the death it only comes out a couple times a year at this point although I'm hoping to increase that frequency so that is available to you also as a pastor mentioned there's a book table and back lots of good stuff on there at the risk of sounding immodest after I've just said it's good stuff I do have three videos on astronomy the first one as I mentioned before is a whole presentation the solar system goes planet by planet through the solar system each one denies the secular model of origins in a different way even above and beyond the stuff we talked about this evening very visual presentation lots of photographs and so on the second volume in that series is about the formation of stars and galaxies where did they come from can the second their model account for those know it can what is the size and scale of the cosmos tell us about our Creator and more of those sorts of topics the third volume is what tonight's material was excerpted from addressing the Big Bang specifically and tonight's talk was maybe half of what the overall DVD contains so there's a lot more information about the Big Bang than what you had what we had time to talk about tonight that too is available in the back table this is my website creation astronomy calm that's where the email newsletter is available to you there's a sign-up right there in the home page and do we want to take a couple minutes for questions or is everybody still kind of stunned by the Boltzmann brain thing do we want to have a microphone to pass around okay there's one coming what's at the University of Louisville Toria some time ago and they discussed similar talk because she have discussed tonight and I asked the question at that point what are they gonna do with all the textbooks that are put out in there by the billions that still teaches about the Big Bang now in your studies and your connections with people what can you say about the topic what are they gonna do about it well if you look at how science typically works it's usually portrayed as this smooth process where people find data and they make new theories and then everybody dispassionately and objectively evaluates the theories and then everybody goes with what's best in the real world science usually doesn't work that way in the what usually happens is a theory is widely believed by most of a particular community and as evidence against that starts to accumulate people will start modifying the theory to account for the new information you eventually reach a point where the theory has had so many band-aids slapped on it that people some people get really dissatisfied with it this typically has to be younger people coming into the field because usually the older scientists have written papers have authored books have built a career on the old theory so the younger generation comes in and says wait a minute that whole thing is wrong we're gonna start from scratch with a new theory that totally replaces the old one and then there would be a big fight over it and then maybe the new one will win and typically when this happens the old one topples generally in a short period of time so the reason I'm saying all this is the big bang has accumulated a lot of bandages by this point which is why even some people who invented inflationary theory for example are now turning against it what will replace it I don't know but it seems pretty ripe for overthrow by this point because it has so many internal contradictions and has it has changed tremendously since its first inception in the 60s even though it's been true the whole time well the reason I asked that question is because our verse in the scientific world going to do what the Texas government is doing right now of rewriting the history of Texas and the same is true in you know in the university of I think Ohio as well as in Indiana that they are going to rewrite their textbooks in reference to their own state well I don't know anything about the textbook process but if you're asking if the Big Bang Theory is ready to be overthrown I think it's way overdue for that I don't know what will replace it necessarily there aren't really any good candidates right now which is one of the reasons it's been as long as it is it's a relevant question for Christians because what will happen in astrays out there who are pretty much based on the idea that the Big Bang is valid and so we need to you know use that to support the Bible and they've reinterpreted the Bible in some cases to try to make it fit the Big Bang better well if that's your whole basis of apologetics what are you gonna do in the Big Bang model gets thrown out and replaced by something else so trying to trying to base your biblical interpretation on the shifting quicksand of what the scientific community might have the consensus opinion of today well where are you gonna be tomorrow when they throw that away and go somewhere else so I'm not sure if that answer your question or not but yeah the whole question of uh models and what's taught to the public yeah it's it's a real challenge any other questions thank you you mentioned dark energy and dark matter are they realistic or is it just a fudge factor to make certain calculations work in favor of the Big Bang model well that depends who you ask dark matter is easy to mischaracterize there are some there are some observations on galaxy clusters for example where it appears that there's not enough mass within the galaxy clusters to hold them together gravitationally we see how how quickly the clusters are moving we can estimate how much mass there is within the cluster and so we know how much they're pulling on each other gravitationally and it appears that there's not enough matter there to hold the cluster together so you have two options number one the cluster isn't actually going to stay together it's in the process of flying apart that would mean it can't be billions of years old your second option is it has been it is stable in that configuration but that would mean there has to be a lot more gravity there to hold it together that we can account for and that would imply there's has to be more matter there there has to be more physical stuff to produce the gravity to hold it all together the problem is we can measure what what we see and gauge how much mass there is but there's it's far far inadequate to account for the gravity you need to keep this thing together thus they say there's a lot of matter there we can't see to account for this so dark matter the matter means it's tough and dark means we can't see it in similar fashion some galaxies when we measure the speeds of the stars within it the ones in the middle appear to be behaving as expected the ones on the outside appeared to be moving too quickly to stay as part of the galaxies now again these you can say well the galaxies just in the process of you know these starts leaving or you can say well the galaxy is actually held together over long long term but that again requires more matter than we can see this time in like a halo around the whole galaxy but again we don't see anything there so the secular community has focused on dark matter as this new exotic form of matter that exerts gravitational effects on everything but does not interact with light so it's literally invisible light passes right through it it doesn't emit light it doesn't block it at whatever doesn't interact with it at all now such a type of matter is unknown to physics thus the ear invoking a you know something outside of physics in order to explain this now within the creation community most people aren't very accepting of this proposal there's one astronomer in particular within the creation community who's friendlier toward it but there's other possible explanations for these observations one option is that we don't really understand how gravity works on such a large scale there are people who have modified the equations of gravity to say to produce the various velocities that we see of the stars of the new galaxy or the galaxies within a cluster or whatever and so even in the second community there's other proposals but the majority of people are focused on dark matter and the search for it now there's been lots of searches for different proposed forms of it all of which have failed so far so dark matter does have some observations that it was invented to try to explain dark energy on the other hand is more of a fudge factor to use your phrase their dark energy where the dark means again something we can't see and otherwise don't know about this was invented to explain some discrepancies with what the Big Bang model predicts for faraway objects compared to actual observations of their accelerations if you take certain supernova observations and you interpret them with the Big Bang model you produce you come up with a history of the universe where it's not only that the universe is expanding but the expansion rate itself is accelerating so what would do that that's again unknown the physics gravity is trying to pull all this together it's one thing to say it's expanding against but why would the expansion itself be accelerated so dark energy is this new hypothetical form of anti-gravity energy that the secular folks are is necessary for them to believe in in order to keep believing in the Big Bang model and just as an aside dark energy is one of the reasons that the Boltzmann brain problem exists any atheistic cosmology actually has a Boltzmann brain problem regardless but the Big Bang model specifically has a worst one with the infinite number of Boltzmann brains per normal brain that comes directly out of dark energy inflation so hopefully that wasn't too much detail so there is some fudge factor going on there dark energy for sure even within dark matter dark matter is based on some observations but there's other possible explanations of it than just this new form of matter that everybody's talking about and I hope that answer made sense yes sir in the New Testament were warned not to let the Judaizers would creep into the church and that's back in the first century in the primitive Church so what's your opinion about the idea that the Big Bang is an is a concept in the Talmud and that the Talmud is the Judaizers have crept into the modern church so that the modern Christian Church accepts the Big Bang when it's an anti-christian idea I didn't fully catch a concept of oh you're aware that the Big Bang is one of the prime ideas in the Talmud did you know Talmud oh well the Talmud far predates the modern big bang model bomb are you you understand that the Talmud has the Big Bang Theory as its prime idea did you know though I mean a lot of pagan cultures have some kind of Big Bang ish kind of thing but that mean the modern Big Bang Theory I would say is a lot more specific than than some of those older ideas I don't I'm asking you if you will accept that the Judaizers have crept into the modern church the modern Christian Church and brought with them that's where the Big Bang comes from that's not how I would characterize that no I think a lot of this thinking in the church is because people are people are trying to accept what they think is proven fact and make the Bible fit that people don't generally have a good grasp of the history of science and tend to elevate scientific opinion with and give it a lot more authority than it really deserves scientific opinion on something changes constantly but our culture today portrays you know the guy in the lab coat I mean he's the new priest in a sense so and a lot of pastors have been influenced by that way of thinking and so when a scientist says something well if that's how if that's the truth then we need to interpret the Bible according to what the truth is that's backwards the Bible is God's Word the Bible is our authority if scientific opinion doesn't happen to coincide with it right now well so much the worse for scientific opinion in as much as science discovers the truth it will always verify Scripture because the scripture is truth so I wouldn't call it a judy judy Iser issue I think it's a art a lot of pastors I shouldn't say pastors just our culture in general has really lost sight of what what our Authority is supposed to be and so yeah there's a lot of compromise going on in these issues microphone is yes sir it was done okay the Bible says a darkness was on the face of the deep and it was moved like the waters I'm not quoting an exact and so the universe before let there be light was pure dark now I have a system I have I have understood that matter is collapsing and that what dark matter was was God said let there be light and shot off electrons off of dark matter to create light and then so my theory is that dark matter is just collapsed matter is there any reason this could not be well dark matter refers to something specifically being searched for to solve certain problems in astronomy right now so dark matter is not something that's known in physics it's like I said it's this hypothetical particle that's invisible so I wouldn't apply that description to anything going on in Genesis nor do I claim to understand the first few verses and exactly what God did you know the Lord did things as he did it and I'm comfortable just affirming that so rather than trying to apply modern physics to interpret Genesis which almost kind of runs into the same thing that we just talked about a moment ago I'm very hesitant to try to apply current scientific thinking to a specific part of the Bible because current scientific thinking is you know can change very quickly yes ma'am [Music] yes and then is the law of entropy the second law of thermodynamics yes correct okay that was it yep thank you yes sir with regards to the the Bible and the creation and the power of God God asked job Casta God guide the path of our truths we know today that according to science if I my knowledge is correct that arctor is actually speeding in space a thousand times faster than speed of light what is the one that's controlling it other than the power of God there are no stars spinning faster than the speed of light that would that would be incorrect it's it nothing can move faster than the speed of light because only something which has no mass can move at the speed of light like light itself has no mass but it to accelerate anything with mass anything physical to get it going faster and faster requires more and more energy you know more and more of a push if you will to get it going and as you approach the speed of light the amount of energy increases exponentially it would actually require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light so only light only something that's massless can travel at that speed in other words the the program we see can W which is earth and skies what are they did in there is wrong I'm having trouble hearing you can you repeat the question I said the radio show talking about earth and sky from C K and W you know that the radio station I'm not familiar with that I'm sorry but anyway they're saying that yes there are objects in the sky that are actually traveling farther a faster than the speed of light and the Isetta that the movement beyond our galaxy is way faster than we could even imagine and if that were true I would say that the only reason they could be doing that is because it's the power of God controlling it well one thing they might have been talking about the only motion faster than light in the universe is not strictly speaking motion through space if you interpret the redshifts as evidence for expansion and as I mentioned the farther away things are from us the more redshift that they are that means the farther things are moving away from us faster than the closer things you'd go out far enough and you will reach things that would be traveling away from us at faster than light speed now we can't actually see those objects because the light wasn't gonna reach it to us they aren't moving through space at faster than light speed though this is the universe itself expanding in between everything and maybe that difference is a bit nitpicky but maybe that's what they were referring to I don't know I didn't hear that show but nothing that we're looking at you know not certainly no stars that are visible to us or are moving faster than light speed let me ask one more question of the audience here yeah typically one of the first questions I get is if the universe was created recently how can we see distant stars that are that are far away does anybody want to discuss that before we close tonight okay a couple hands okay so hopefully people understand why I'm asking the question we see things that are so far away that the light would take far more than six thousand years to get here and if the universe is only six thousand years old how can we see these things some of these things light would take millions or billions of years to get here so why should we see them some atheist even claim this alone is enough to disprove a recent creation just go look aside and look at the Stars that proves creation isn't true well there's actually several options here one that a lot of people have heard about is that the speed of light used to be different in the past anybody heard of this idea before if light used to travel faster in the past then the time to get here would be less than this calculation would indicate today right so this would do away with the problem is that hopefully clear how that would work this idea used to have or used to seem to have some potential to it under further study this idea doesn't really seem to work for a variety of reasons so most creationists are no longer looking into this but a lot of people have heard about it and still wonder about it so that's why I like to mention it option two is that the Lord created light in between us and these objects as part of creation he created the creation mature I mean Adam didn't wake up as a baby or an embryo he woke up as a man he didn't wake up next to a pile of fruit pits and acorns and seeds he woke up next to fruit trees right fully functional so in similar fashion perhaps God created a functional universe which included beams of light in between us and those various objects now some people don't like this explanation because they think it would make God a deceiver for example we see supernova explosions some of these now this by the way is a star that blows up in some cases we've actually seen the star before it blew up so people say well if there's this you know there's this light beam that God created and for example there's a supernova in 1987 that was a hundred and sixty-eight thousand light years away so this light beam had to be a hundred and sixty-eight thousand light years long but we saw a star there until 1987 you know roughly six thousand years after creation more or less almost so that means the first six thousand light years of that beam had the image of a star in it and then it had the image of an explosion in it that took the image took six thousand years to get here in 1987 and then behind it we're seeing an expanding ring of gas after the explosion and so presumably that's what the rest of this you know light beam is going to show us so do you understand how that what would be in the light beam then in this scenario but the issue is there was never a star on this end of the being the star never existed the star was only an image in the first six thousand light years of the beam and then there was an explosion image which also never existed and so on so some people think the mature creation idea makes God a deceiver I don't think that's the case I don't think that would make God a deceiver because if the Lord tells us when he created everything it's not deceptive Adam wasn't deceived by the fruit trees was he the fruit tree looks at least five years old to make fruit let's say but Adam didn't think it wasn't deceived by that because the Lord told him no I made these three days or three days ago so mature creation is another option for this problem then there's other more scientific solutions and I have a whole topic a whole presentation just on this but I'm going to limit this just one option which is time dilation what does that mean well Einstein's relativity has some interesting implications as you probably know one of them is that gravity affects time so the deeper you are in a gravitational field in a gravitational well the slower time flows for you and we verified this experimentally for example in the US we have several atomic cesium clocks there's one at sea level in Maryland and there's one a mile above sea level in Colorado the one at sea level ticks a little more slowly atomic clocks don't really tick but you know it's measuring time more slowly than the one a mile above it in altitude why is that because the one at sea level is further down inside the Earth's gravitational well now the difference between them isn't much but it's measurable and that's exactly what Einstein predicted in similar fashion the GPS satellites which I'm showing you here are obviously higher above the earth and we our time flows slightly more quickly for them up there than it does for us down here and the satellites actually have to account for this difference in their calculations I get to see it's to see the GPS design documents at one point when I was working with the people who were flying them so GPS has to account for this relativistic effect if it didn't account for it then it's calibration with our clocks would drift over time and eventually GPS wouldn't work anymore so my point is Einstein predicted gravity affects time it seemed weird but we've verified experimentally and in fact some of our technology has to account for this because it's a real effect okay so why am I talking about it because of verses like this Isaiah 42 says thus says the God the Lord who created the heavens and stretched them out so a few years back a bible-believing physicist was reading one of these passages that say similar things I remember was this one or not specifically but he said God stretched out the heavens what is that poetry or is it literally what happened if it's literal what would that look like so he figured let's say the early universe God created all the matter of the universe in a very small volume very small region of space let's say it was small enough that everything was dense enough to have gravity strong enough that it would be a black hole okay so right at the beginning God created the initial matter of the universe it's still formless and void at this point and it's in a black hole now this dotted line here represents the event horizon of the black hole so this is not a physical thing it's not a shell it's just a distance the event horizon distance from the center of a black hole tells you how wide the black hole is so in here is black hole effect all the black hole weirdness happens and out here is normal so this is how God created it now he starts stretching as he's stretching the volume increases which means the density decreases which means the strength of the black hole decreases which means the event horizon that distance starts to shrink now within this God has started to form things got galaxies and so on he continues stretching eventually the universe gets large enough and the black hole gets small enough that some of the universe is now outside the black hole while the rest of the universe is still inside and we're still in here by the way and roughly toward the middle of that here's where it gets interesting because this relativistic time the fact that I'm talking about means time is flowing normally out here now but inside the black hole time is almost stopped because that's how black holes work so time is now flowing more rapidly out hit much much more rapidly by the way than it is inside and again the earth is still in here at this point so God continues creating things continue stretching again time is now flowing more rapidly out here for a larger region of space because the black hole is getting smaller but in here time is still close to being stopped it's hardly ticking at all God keeps expanding and stretching the heavens until eventually the universe is large enough which means the density is low enough that the black hole is gone no more black hole anywhere well there's small local ones left over but that's not what we're talking about so today now that this massive black hole in the middle is gone time is flowing the same everywhere except for you know local variations like if you're next to a star or a planet or something but overall time is flowing at the same rate but what has happened until this point lots of time has passed out here where very little time has passed here so you could have millions or billions of years passing out here which gives time for galaxies to collide and some other stuff that we see going on in space that would seem to take a long time and there's time for light to come from out here into here while meanwhile the clock here only measured six 24-hour days so if you ask the physicists who came who realized that relativity had this implication for a creation cosmology if you ask him how old is the universe he'll say according to which clock because which of these clocks is correct they all are they all correctly measure the time in their local region of space in their local environment but the one out here measured a lot more time than the one here did here measured six days of creation and then a seventh Sabbath and what has happens now today what has happened since then while 6,000 years later so this one is now 6,000 years more than it was and that one in 6,000 years more than it was but that one had a whole bunch more on it to begin with but you understand the point here different clocks and different parts of the region in the universe will flow at different rates depending how the mass was distributed so this explains how light could get here along with some other issues related to that question so hopefully that is helpful but there's other possible solutions than this one and by the way the physicist who came up with this has since taken the idea in a little bit different direction than how I just described it to you but I like using his first model because it's hopefully it's clear and it shows how the different clocks flow at different times alright thank you very much for your attention folks on behalf of our congregation spike thank you so much you know what before before you go before you go we have a very nice song that Gladys is just about to sing I just wanted to ask you here you mentioned you were an atheist this is the last last question for you okay you were in the atheist and you became a believer mhm what evidence specifically would gave you this aha moment when you said wow no there must be God is there any was it the the fine-tuning or was it the physics you know is there anything or maybe it's everything that just dawn on you then you said you know there must be God what happened what when did it happen to you and what when you answered it wasn't one aha moment it was a series of oh no moments because I was trying to disprove creation that's how I got into all this look I I would started I was working with a man who I found out was a creationist and I chat I was kind of shocked I mean he's a smart guy he's there working with us but he believes this stuff I said how can you deny all the obvious evidence for evolution he said what obvious evidence is that so I started challenging him on fossil sequences and age of the earth and you know radiometric dating and all these things and he shot it all down this is a series of conversations over a long period of time over lunch and whatever as we had time and so I'm challenging him and he keeps answering all my questions and I start looking at the stuff he's saying and he was right eventually after a while I ran out of things to ask him and so he says okay I answered your questions you can answer mine that's fair he says you believe in the laws of physics don't you and I said we use in here every day sure and he said how do you reconcile those with the Big Bang model so when I thought about the question because he didn't even explain what he meant that's when I first realized wait a minute first author more dynamic second law of thermodynamics and all these other problems that the Big Bang model doesn't play well with physics that's when it got personal for me so that was a you know a seminal moment in a sense up to then it was me having fun trying to you know batter him with questions suddenly I realize I have a problem with my worldview and now I got to fix this so that really launched me on a big research project a diss prove what he was saying and B to find justification for what I believed but as I'm digging through my text books and all the rest of it I'm seeing these huge holes and their reasoning I'm so how come I know I never noticed this before I mean here's the math and then they go shrug we don't know but this part and then they go on with the math again so you can't do that and meanwhile I was taking a going for a master's in physics at University of Colorado at night and as I'm sitting in physics classes these are not creation classes at all but because of my daytime conversations I'm sensitive to origins questions we're studying things like orbits and astrodynamics and other stuff and I'm realizing well if this math is correct and I know it is because I just did it then this means there's big problems in for example the solar system the solar system can't have formed the way they claim because this says that's impossible and I go look things up in the solar and the planetary science stuff and sure enough that doesn't work either then so I eventually ran out of places to go in astronomy I said okay astronomy is all pointing the wrong way what about biology sure there's there must be evidence for Darwinian evolution over millions of years etc well I dug into that that didn't work geology didn't work paleontology didn't work then my friend started bringing in books about the historicity of the Bible evidence that that the Bible was accurate and that we have reliable manuscripts and copies of its day that we know what the original authors wrote that there was a man 2,000 years ago named Jesus who died and rose again and overwhelming evidence for that and I was evidence for a global flood and all the stuff and after almost a year trying to disprove all this I had nowhere else to go after a while I was like a cornered rat all the scientists pointed the wrong way so at that point I said okay creations true but I don't want it to be true so what do i do so that's that in a nutshell there wasn't a one moment I can point to it was almost a year of research trying to disprove it all before I finally had to say I give up thank you spike thank once again thank you so much I don't know what you but spike when you Alec when speaker you know you you speak fast and and some of it sounded like Greek and Hebrew to me you know but at the same time you you were you you try you know your best to explain it and I and I tried to make a list of all the arguments but it was very clear thank you so much and but in all of the things you've said I just realized how little we know about our universe I think I remember one scientist who was asked a question how much how much do we know and he said something like less than 1% out of a hundred percent of how much more there is to know so there is a song God and God alone and this is what GLaDOS is going to sing let us just pay attention and then of course we'll have a prayer and then you can ask questions of spike spike you will be able to take some more questions and probably you'll be there there that the desk could with all the books so GLaDOS lead us in the song God and God alone I just wanted to say spike that everything that you said tonight is rap don't even in the title God and God alone [Music] and God created all [Music] I'm the mighty tools and balls [Music] reveals the truth and all the best a nurse a man will change masters it's no and [Music] [Music] it's true [Music] we'll be the Jew he will be one desire for parts [Music] [Music] let everything it's reserved it's true [Music] let us pray Heavenly Father thank you so much well for gathering us here thank you for a spike in his presentation we definitely learned a lot and just just feel so little compared to your glory in your power and at the same time Lord we I feel like it will take eternity just to get to know you and we thank you that we have been carefully and wonderfully made made in your image we thank you for that and now we ask for traveling mercies and may we see each other again I prayed us in the name of Jesus Christ amen god bless you folks remember we continue tomorrow evening at 7 o'clock but I think spike there's people that want to talk to you I already spent a lot of money I have to

Channel: Church in Victoria

Views: 14,632

Rating: 4.8074865 out of 5

Keywords: Spike Psarris

Id: _gQt43OCXGo

Length: 77min 50sec (4670 seconds)

Published: Sat Oct 21 2017