Well, we've had a shift here and we've got
the autumn stars high overhead. One of them is back
behind me, here. We have this M group
of stars in the sky. You know, earlier it was a W. That's true. Now it's an M. And that's because the rotation
of the Earth has caused the whole sky to wheel
around the North Star. And as it does, it changes from a W
to a 3 to an M. That's the constellation
of Cassiopeia — the Queen, you're supposed to see
a Queen seated there. I don't really see that. And then back this way
a little ways, we have the Great
Square of Pegasus. It’s this big rectangle. I see that. Not quite a square,
we call it a square. There are very few stars inside
so it really jumps out at you. High overhead
in autumn evenings, and it's supposed
to be a winged horse. This is the body of the horse
and the wing sticking out here. Its head is up here like that. And out here,
the two front legs. We only have the front half,
we don't have the back half. But, you know,
I've always thought if you're going
to to have a half a horse — You better have the front half. Front half rather
than the backhalf. That's the
constellation Pegasus. Now, coming off of Pegasus
is Andromeda — supposed to be a chained maiden, here. Go up a couple stars,
a fuzzy spot right there. Can you see that? Yes. I do. Now it's best to use
averted vision — you don't look right at it. But you look off
to the side and when you do that it shows that much better. Little fuzzy patch. Little fuzzy spot. That's the Andromeda Galaxy. That is the most distant object that you can see
with the naked eye. But it's the nearest galaxy
similar to our own galaxy. It's a little — we think a little over
2 million light years away and it contains
a couple hundred billion stars. So it's a very impressive
object in the sky, but you need a lot
of aperture to see it well. Okay, Danny, that brings me to a big question
and a big question a lot of people's minds. If we have stars that are that far away,
millions of light years away, and if the Earth is young, as we believe, then how in the world
can starlight be here? Yeah. We call this light
travel time problem and I'll try to phrase it
for you a little differently. We believe that the Creation is only thousands of years
old — say 6000 years, 7000 or something like that. And I've just pointed
out something to you that we think is 2 million light
years away from us. I think those distances
are reasonably correct. You know, if it's
off by 100 percent that's still maybe
1 million light years. That isn't going
to solve the problem. And by the way,
this is just the closest. There are galaxies
that are hundreds of millions — even billions —
of light years away from us. So, the question is as you ask, if the universe is
only 6000 years old, you can only see things
within 6000 light years. How can we see
those distant objects? Now, it wouldn't affect
most the stars you see because they're at most
a few hundred light years in most cases —
a couple thousand light years. But you know,
the situation, Del, is a lot worse than you said. The situation is even worse. Let's go back to the beginning
of Creation — say the end of day six,
beginning of day seven, the sky gets dark. The Creation's ended. Adam and Eve look up. The sunsets, the sky gets dark,
what do they see? They had to see stars. Because if they didn't the stars could
not fulfill their function. But the problem is
the nearest star outside of the Sun is more
than four light years away. So how could Adam see
the nearest stars? We're so concentrated on the most distant objects
in the universe, but we really need to think
about what Adam saw in the closest objects
outside the solar system. If you can answer
that question, that problem, then I think the problem we have
today probably answers itself. I see that. And we Creationists need
to answer this question and we've offered several
different solutions to that. I'll discuss with you
myself solution on this. And I came up with this
a few years ago after wrestling with this for years. And I think I was looking
for a scientific answer, if you will,
a physical answer. But I think… several
things jump out at me in the Creation account. One is that many people think that everything during the
Creation Week was instantaneous. Poof a tree appeared
where there was none. Poof a whale appears
where there was none. But that's not what
the text generally says. There's a lot of process going
on — very rapid process but still process. For instance, did God make
Adam just poof out of nothing? No, he shaped his body
out of dust of the ground. What about Eve? Well, he took from his side
and made Eve. That was a process
in either case. It was a quick one,
it didn't take, you know, hours or days. It had to happen
less than a day. But it was a process. Still was a process. Look at the account of
the animals — not in Chapter 1, but in Chapter 2 — it speaks of the animals
coming out of the ground. Ground giving rise
to these things. If you look at the
day three account, it talks about plants rising up
out of the ground. It says, “Let the earth bring
forth these plants and the earth brought forth. ” If you look at those words used there in Hebrew, they're
very active dynamic terms. It's almost like these things
are sprouting up out of the ground very rapidly. I think if you would have been there it would have looked
like a timelapse movie. You would have seen growth that might take normally
decades taking place in a matter of minutes
or hours at the most. Normal growth abnormally fast. Why? Well, in another
two to three days, you going to have all sorts
of critters and people that are going to rely
upon those plants because it turns out everybody
was vegetarian to start with. And if you waited
until they normally mature the way they normally do,
everybody would have starved. >>DEL: Starved to death. Because you know, even the fastest growing
garden plants take a couple of months to reach maturity. So, God had to mature
these things fast — rapidly. He didn't make them mature, He matured them rapidly
from what the language is telling you there. I believe you can interpret one day of Creation
in terms of another day. So, I turn of the
day four account. Not much information is given
there but I think God also rapidly made the stars
and other astronomical bodies. And then in order for them to fulfill
their function to be seen, He had to rapidly bring
forth that light just as he brought plants and matured them quickly —
he had to bring that light here. Now, I'm not suggesting the
light was created in transit — that's one theory. See, if you have light
created in transit, the light we're getting from these distant
objects didn't come from physical processes. It's like there were holograms
or just illusions. I'm suggesting when we
actually look at these objects, like the Andromeda Galaxy
we saw a few minutes ago, we're looking at light
that actually left that object. Yes. I believe that the
Andromeda Galaxy is about 2 million light years away, but I don't for a minute think that the light has
been traveling that long. I think we're looking at the universe in something
close to real time. If the light is only a few
thousand years old instead of a couple of million years old, that's pretty close
to real time. So, I think there's
a rapid maturing took place. Also, I'm not appealing
to a physical mechanism. I'm appealing to a miraculous... Sure. Some of my Creation Science
buddies have given me a little bit of grief on this because they're looking for scientific answers
for everything. And you can give
scientific answers so far back, but you know
the writer of Hebrews and also Paul writing
the Colassians talked about the current sustaining
of this world by the power of His Word. Moment by moment,
the Lord sustains this world. I don't know how he does it. Maybe it's miraculous. But he does it
in a consistent pattern, a way that God does things, He does them
consistently and orderly. And we can study that. In fact, we can write equations
that describe it. These equations we have,
it's called Physics. And so the study of physics
is really the study of how the world is being sustained
moment by moment. But you can't take that sustaining and extrapolate
it back into the past, because eventually you'll bump
up against Creation in the past. And Creation is a miracle. There's a certain point where
the miraculous takes place. And I think at some point,
maybe it’s stages, but certainly by the end
of Creation Week, God went from creating to sustaining. And if we try to push back
the current sustaining — what we call physics —
into the Creation Week too far, we were kind of committing the uniformitarian assumption
we accuse the evolutionists of. And I think, sometimes
we seriously underestimate how the miracle of Creation — we might as well come up
with the physical explanation for the virgin birth
and the resurrection. So you know, after more than three decades
of wrestling with this issue, I finally come to peace
with an explanation. And it's interesting that a scientist has come around
with an appeal to a miracle and I'm okay with that. I found many people
are okay with that. Well, Danny, this
all makes sense to me. In fact, it reminds me
of the first miracle of Jesus. And if we were to try
and take physics and all that we know about wine
and try to understand how Jesus created wine
in a very rapid moment, we wouldn't be able to do that. No. I think that underscores
the fact that science addresses the natural world
and miracles are supernatural. And so you can't use a scientific method
to discuss miracles. Well, Danny, do you
see any other evidences that would indicate that the universe is
really much younger than what the traditional
paradigm would tell us? Yes, I do. For instance, spiral galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy we talked
about is a spiral galaxy, our own is. It's a pretty common
type of galaxy. In their discs, they have the spiral pattern
made up of clouds of dust and gas
and bright stars. And the inside of the galaxy should spin faster
than the outside of the galaxy. So after a few rotations
you wind up or smear out those spiral patterns
— they ought to disappear after a few rotations. Now, most astronomers think that spiral galaxies are
10 billion years old. So, why do we still
see a spiral pattern? You shouldn’t see those. And it's been long
recognized as a problem. In the late 60s they developed this thing called
spiral density wave theory and that was the answer
for several decades. They assured us
that it worked — that there are these sound waves
propagating through the galaxy that maybe these things persist. Well, then by the 90s they
were invoking companion galaxies that were stirring
things up instead. And more recently, it's now been dark matter
that’s stirring these things up. So, we've had in the last 45
years three different solutions to this problem. You don't need new solutions
if the old ones worked. And they assured us
that they did. So, I think that's a problem. If we look at the outer planets
of the solar system, the gas giants,
they all have rings. You know, when we
were growing up only Saturn had a ring system, but now we know that the other
three have them as well. And we also know that these things
are changing — wiping out. We know theoretically
they ought to, and with probes
to Saturn and Jupiter, they've actually documented changes that have taken place
within the ring system. You have all these gravitational tugs from the other
satellites orbiting around. And people have estimated that a ring system like Saturn’s
can last maybe a million years or just a few million years —
with an M, not a B. So these ring systems
are fairly young. Doesn't prove the solar
system is young, but it proves that
these ring systems are young. And that's interesting. You know, in the summer
of 2015 we got the first photos from the surface of Pluto. And the big shock everyone had,
including me, was the fact that there's a lack of craters —
there are a few impact craters, but not many on Pluto. Now, it's been doctrine for
decades in the solar system that whenever you see lots
of impact craters, it indicates a very old surface. And when you see
very few craters, it's a young surface. You've had geological activity that's reworked it and you can
do that three different ways. Well, none of them
work for Pluto. So it indicates
that Pluto is a young object. Doesn't have any way to do this — they're trying
to figure that out. How in the world and billions of years you
can have a young looking Pluto? Those are the kind
of little interesting things that you see from time
to time about the planets. We see evidence
of rapid processes on the surface of planets. Venus, they believe, had a complete overturning
of its surface in the not too distant past. They say like 150
million years ago which is pretty recent in a four
and a half billion year history. But they think the entire
surface of Venus was turned over in a very brief period
of time — million years or less on their time scale. Further more, you look at Mars. Secular scientists are saying that there was a global or near
global flood on Mars — a place where there is no water today. They don't think
that could happen on Earth because they don't
believe it happened. There's plenty of water here. Those kind of things
indicating rapid processes — much more rapid
than many people realize. So, I think there is
evidence out there. And my job as
a Creation scientist and an astronomer is to identify
and discuss those and bring attention to them and I intend to keep doing
that over the years. That brings us to
what most people see is the big theory concerning
cosmology and the universe and that's the Big Bang. How do you see that? Is it holding up over time? No, I don't think so. I think it's
getting some problems. You know, I reject it because
I'm a biblical creationist and I don't see any way that you can reconcile
Big Bang with the Bible, though a lot of people
seem to think that you can. I think the temptation they have there is to try
to interpret Scripture in terms of the current
cosmological thinking. That's nothing new, that's happened before,
as it's turned out, with disasters results. But I like to compare
the Big Bang model to the ruling cosmology of the Middle Ages the what
we call the Ptolemaic Theory. A man named Claudius Ptolemy around the early second
century A.D. developed this theory to explain
the motions of the planets. As the planets orbit
around the Sun, and we orbit around the Sun, too, it makes for
very complex motion. The planets as well as the Sun
and the Moon seemed to move in a west to east direction
along the ecliptic, the plane of the Earth's orbit
around the Sun and solar system. The plane of the solar system. But from time to time,
the planets reverse direction, they go from west to east,
back east to west, we call it retrograde motion. And that was
difficult to explain if you think the Earth is
the center of things — the Geocentric Theory — like the ancients did. So what Ptolemy came up
with is a very complex model where you had a planet not just
orbiting around the Earth, but you had it orbiting
on a smaller circle called the epicycle. And the epicycle in turn
went around the Earth, and if you adjust the sizes
of those two circles and the speeds, you can end up with
this motion like this where the planet seems
to move backwards. And this was a ruling cosmology
for 15 centuries, from really the 2nd century up
through the 17th century. Now, as new data came along
and problems developed so that you had a discrepancy
between the theory and the data, they simply altered the theory
— added more epicycles to make the theory work and fit. Sounds complicated. That was the strength
of the model that you could adjust it to fit
anything new that came along. Well, it was also the undoing because it became
very complicated. By the year 1600, there were systems
of more than 100 epicycles. You had gears on gears
on gears on gears. And people realised
this is way too complex. And finally it was rejected. And the Big Bang
has done the same thing, it's been the ruling paradigm
for 50 years and in that length of time I've seen
tremendous changes take place. In the early 1980s we
had this Big Bang model that seemed pretty mature
and they were convinced that this Big Bang
model was true. But since then, a lot of changes
have taken place. They changed the expansion rate
of the universe which decreased the age
from 16-18 billion years to 13.8 billion plus
or minus 1 percent. They've introduced string theory
into the model. This is the thing dealing with particle physics
you have to put in. They've introduced dark matter. They've introduced dark energy. They've introduced this idea
of cosmic inflation, that the universe
expanded very rapidly in the early universe
to solve a couple of problems that they have. By the way, there's no evidence for inflation but everybody
believes it happened because basically we're
here, aren't we. I've seen in my adult lifetime
numerous changes taking place to the Big Bang theory and it's starting
to look like epicycles. It's starting to look
like the Ptolemaic model. Just as the strength
of that model was that you could change it to fit
new problems and data, they're doing the same thing
with the Big Bang and changing it. You know, they had
the COBE experiment 1989 to 91. It was measuring
little fluctuations in temperature predicted in the background radiation, the
supposed proof of the Big Bang. And they had predicted
fluctuations in temperature from point to point
one part in 10,000. Well they found fluctuations
one part in a 100,000 — a factor of 10 less. And afterwards they said
that the predictions and the actual measurements
beautifully agreed. Saying, “ Wait a minute,
how can that be? ” What they did is
they changed the model to fit the data once again. You know, if you have
rules like that you can never disprove a theory. One of the fundamental
assumptions that the Big Bang is based upon is that there's a homogeneity
of the universe, that it's kind of smooth, it makes the mathematics
work out easier, by the way. And we recognize that on the local level it's
kind of clumpy — we have planets and stars and so forth, but then you have galaxies
and groups of galaxies and galaxies working the way up. It's kind of assumed that on the biggest scale
that that sort of smooths out. But what we found
over the last 35 years is that this clumpiness goes up to the highest levels
— kind of shocking when they began to realize that. They don't talk
about it much anymore, but the problem is
this… we're now, really, poised to make what we think is the structure
of the universe on the grandest scales
and it's clumpy all the way up. And what most people fail
to realize is this negates the very foundation upon which
the Big Bang is based — the assumption of homogeneity. It's not homogeneous anywhere. It's been an article of faith that at some level
it is homogeneous despite all evidence
to the contrary. And we're seeing it on the like
the giga-light year scale now. It's across the entire universe. And so the Big Bang has become the ruling paradigm
and it is becoming doctrine, it's becoming dogma. So much so that more
than a dozen years ago, I think in the New
Scientist magazine, there was an open letter
protesting the Big Bang theory and it's had hundreds
of signatories since. Most of the people
signing it are atheists! They’re not even creationists! So, this idea that the Big Bang model
is universally accepted is not true. There are many people out there,
well-known people, very famous physics
and astronomy people that have real problems
with the Big Bang. So, I think when you look
at the history of science, the way we've discarded
theories over time, you've had theories
that are supposedly beyond dispute and then
later on discarded, when you see that lesson from
history and then you want to we d Genesis, you want to interpret Genesis in terms
of the ruling paradigm … I think we need
to be very careful. Yeah. Well, all of this, Danny, just brings me back again
to the awe associated with all that God has done. The immensity of it! Yeah. You know, we've been
out for quite a while and the summer stars have kind
of gotten out of the way and the autumn stars
have moved across. We're now getting a lot
of winter stars up here. And I want to point
those out to you. One of my favorite
constellations up there is Orion. Do you know Orion? That's a really good one. But it's also mentioned in the Old Testament
three times — twice in Job, once in Amos. You know, when I
look up at Orion, I'm seeing about
the same thing Job saw because those stars are hundreds
of light years away and even though they're moving, they haven't changed
in 4000 years, really, the shape is about the same. But you know, there's a connection
I can make to a man who's been gone
for thousands of years, but more important than that, of course, is that I should make
the connection to our Creator because God was challenging
Job about the fact that He created all
of these things…
