Well, we've had a shift here and we've gotthe autumn stars high overhead.
One of them is backbehind me, here.
We have this M groupof stars in the sky.
You know, earlier it was a W.
Now it's an M.
And that's because the rotationof the Earth has caused the whole sky to wheelaround the North Star.
And as it does, it changes from a Wto a 3 to an M.
That's the constellationof Cassiopeia — the Queen, you're supposed to seea Queen seated there.
I don't really see that.
And then back this waya little ways, we have the GreatSquare of Pegasus.
It’s this big rectangle.
I see that.
Not quite a square, we call it a square.
There are very few stars insideso it really jumps out at you.
High overheadin autumn evenings, and it's supposedto be a winged horse.
This is the body of the horseand 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 goingto to have a half a horse — You better have the front half.
Front half ratherthan the backhalf.
That's theconstellation Pegasus.
Now, coming off of Pegasusis Andromeda — supposed to be a chained maiden, here.
Go up a couple stars, a fuzzy spot right there.
Can you see that? Yes.
Now it's best to useaverted vision — you don't look right at it.
But you look offto 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 seewith the naked eye.
But it's the nearest galaxysimilar to our own galaxy.
It's a little — we think a little over2 million light years away and it containsa couple hundred billion stars.
So it's a very impressiveobject in the sky, but you need a lotof aperture to see it well.
Okay, Danny, that brings me to a big questionand 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 worldcan starlight be here? Yeah.
We call this lighttravel time problem and I'll try to phrase itfor you a little differently.
We believe that the Creation is only thousands of yearsold — say 6000 years, 7000 or something like that.
And I've just pointedout something to you that we think is 2 million lightyears away from us.
I think those distancesare reasonably correct.
You know, if it'soff by 100 percent that's still maybe1 million light years.
That isn't goingto solve the problem.
And by the way, this is just the closest.
There are galaxiesthat are hundreds of millions — even billions —of light years away from us.
So, the question is as you ask, if the universe isonly 6000 years old, you can only see thingswithin 6000 light years.
How can we seethose distant objects? Now, it wouldn't affectmost the stars you see because they're at mosta 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 beginningof 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 couldnot fulfill their function.
But the problem isthe nearest star outside of the Sun is morethan four light years away.
So how could Adam seethe nearest stars? We're so concentrated on the most distant objectsin the universe, but we really need to thinkabout what Adam saw in the closest objectsoutside the solar system.
If you can answerthat question, that problem, then I think the problem we havetoday probably answers itself.
I see that.
And we Creationists needto answer this question and we've offered severaldifferent solutions to that.
I'll discuss with youmyself solution on this.
And I came up with thisa few years ago after wrestling with this for years.
And I think I was lookingfor a scientific answer, if you will, a physical answer.
But I think… severalthings jump out at me in the Creation account.
One is that many people think that everything during theCreation Week was instantaneous.
Poof a tree appearedwhere there was none.
Poof a whale appearswhere there was none.
But that's not whatthe text generally says.
There's a lot of process goingon — very rapid process but still process.
For instance, did God makeAdam just poof out of nothing? No, he shaped his bodyout of dust of the ground.
What about Eve? Well, he took from his sideand made Eve.
That was a processin either case.
It was a quick one, it didn't take, you know, hours or days.
It had to happenless than a day.
But it was a process.
Still was a process.
Look at the account ofthe animals — not in Chapter 1, but in Chapter 2 — it speaks of the animalscoming out of the ground.
Ground giving riseto these things.
If you look at theday three account, it talks about plants rising upout of the ground.
It says, “Let the earth bringforth these plants and the earth brought forth.
” If you look at those words used there in Hebrew, they'revery active dynamic terms.
It's almost like these thingsare sprouting up out of the ground very rapidly.
I think if you would have been there it would have lookedlike a timelapse movie.
You would have seen growth that might take normallydecades taking place in a matter of minutesor hours at the most.
Normal growth abnormally fast.
Why? Well, in anothertwo to three days, you going to have all sortsof critters and people that are going to relyupon those plants because it turns out everybodywas vegetarian to start with.
And if you waiteduntil they normally mature the way they normally do, everybody would have starved.
>>DEL: Starved to death.
Because you know, even the fastest growinggarden plants take a couple of months to reach maturity.
So, God had to maturethese things fast — rapidly.
He didn't make them mature, He matured them rapidlyfrom what the language is telling you there.
I believe you can interpret one day of Creationin terms of another day.
So, I turn of theday four account.
Not much information is giventhere but I think God also rapidly made the starsand other astronomical bodies.
And then in order for them to fulfilltheir function to be seen, He had to rapidly bringforth that light just as he brought plants and matured them quickly —he had to bring that light here.
Now, I'm not suggesting thelight was created in transit — that's one theory.
See, if you have lightcreated in transit, the light we're getting from these distantobjects didn't come from physical processes.
It's like there were hologramsor just illusions.
I'm suggesting when weactually look at these objects, like the Andromeda Galaxywe saw a few minutes ago, we're looking at lightthat actually left that object.
I believe that theAndromeda Galaxy is about 2 million light years away, but I don't for a minute think that the light hasbeen traveling that long.
I think we're looking at the universe in somethingclose to real time.
If the light is only a fewthousand years old instead of a couple of million years old, that's pretty closeto real time.
So, I think there'sa rapid maturing took place.
Also, I'm not appealingto a physical mechanism.
I'm appealing to a miraculous.
Some of my Creation Sciencebuddies have given me a little bit of grief on this because they're looking for scientific answersfor everything.
And you can givescientific answers so far back, but you knowthe writer of Hebrews and also Paul writingthe Colassians talked about the current sustainingof 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 itin a consistent pattern, a way that God does things, He does themconsistently and orderly.
And we can study that.
In fact, we can write equationsthat describe it.
These equations we have, it's called Physics.
And so the study of physicsis really the study of how the world is being sustainedmoment by moment.
But you can't take that sustaining and extrapolateit back into the past, because eventually you'll bumpup against Creation in the past.
And Creation is a miracle.
There's a certain point wherethe miraculous takes place.
And I think at some point, maybe it’s stages, but certainly by the endof Creation Week, God went from creating to sustaining.
And if we try to push backthe current sustaining — what we call physics —into the Creation Week too far, we were kind of committing the uniformitarian assumptionwe accuse the evolutionists of.
And I think, sometimeswe seriously underestimate how the miracle of Creation — we might as well come upwith the physical explanation for the virgin birthand the resurrection.
So you know, after more than three decadesof wrestling with this issue, I finally come to peacewith an explanation.
And it's interesting that a scientist has come aroundwith an appeal to a miracle and I'm okay with that.
I found many peopleare okay with that.
Well, Danny, thisall makes sense to me.
In fact, it reminds meof the first miracle of Jesus.
And if we were to tryand take physics and all that we know about wineand try to understand how Jesus created winein a very rapid moment, we wouldn't be able to do that.
I think that underscoresthe fact that science addresses the natural worldand miracles are supernatural.
And so you can't use a scientific methodto discuss miracles.
Well, Danny, do yousee any other evidences that would indicate that the universe isreally much younger than what the traditionalparadigm would tell us? Yes, I do.
For instance, spiral galaxies.
The Andromeda Galaxy we talkedabout is a spiral galaxy, our own is.
It's a pretty commontype of galaxy.
In their discs, they have the spiral patternmade up of clouds of dust and gasand bright stars.
And the inside of the galaxy should spin fasterthan the outside of the galaxy.
So after a few rotationsyou wind up or smear out those spiral patterns— they ought to disappear after a few rotations.
Now, most astronomers think that spiral galaxies are10 billion years old.
So, why do we stillsee a spiral pattern? You shouldn’t see those.
And it's been longrecognized as a problem.
In the late 60s they developed this thing calledspiral density wave theory and that was the answerfor several decades.
They assured usthat it worked — that there are these sound wavespropagating through the galaxy that maybe these things persist.
Well, then by the 90s theywere invoking companion galaxies that were stirringthings up instead.
And more recently, it's now been dark matterthat’s stirring these things up.
So, we've had in the last 45years three different solutions to this problem.
You don't need new solutionsif the old ones worked.
And they assured usthat they did.
So, I think that's a problem.
If we look at the outer planetsof the solar system, the gas giants, they all have rings.
You know, when wewere growing up only Saturn had a ring system, but now we know that the otherthree have them as well.
And we also know that these thingsare changing — wiping out.
We know theoreticallythey ought to, and with probesto Saturn and Jupiter, they've actually documented changes that have taken placewithin the ring system.
You have all these gravitational tugs from the othersatellites orbiting around.
And people have estimated that a ring system like Saturn’scan last maybe a million years or just a few million years —with an M, not a B.
So these ring systemsare fairly young.
Doesn't prove the solarsystem is young, but it proves thatthese ring systems are young.
And that's interesting.
You know, in the summerof 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 fordecades in the solar system that whenever you see lotsof impact craters, it indicates a very old surface.
And when you seevery few craters, it's a young surface.
You've had geological activity that's reworked it and you cando that three different ways.
Well, none of themwork for Pluto.
So it indicatesthat Pluto is a young object.
Doesn't have any way to do this — they're tryingto figure that out.
How in the world and billions of years youcan have a young looking Pluto? Those are the kindof little interesting things that you see from timeto time about the planets.
We see evidenceof rapid processes on the surface of planets.
Venus, they believe, had a complete overturningof its surface in the not too distant past.
They say like 150million years ago which is pretty recent in a fourand a half billion year history.
But they think the entiresurface of Venus was turned over in a very brief periodof 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 nearglobal flood on Mars — a place where there is no water today.
They don't thinkthat could happen on Earth because they don'tbelieve it happened.
There's plenty of water here.
Those kind of thingsindicating rapid processes — much more rapidthan many people realize.
So, I think there isevidence out there.
And my job asa Creation scientist and an astronomer is to identifyand discuss those and bring attention to them and I intend to keep doingthat over the years.
That brings us towhat most people see is the big theory concerningcosmology 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'sgetting some problems.
You know, I reject it becauseI'm a biblical creationist and I don't see any way that you can reconcileBig Bang with the Bible, though a lot of peopleseem to think that you can.
I think the temptation they have there is to tryto interpret Scripture in terms of the currentcosmological thinking.
That's nothing new, that's happened before, as it's turned out, with disasters results.
But I like to comparethe Big Bang model to the ruling cosmology of the Middle Ages the whatwe call the Ptolemaic Theory.
A man named Claudius Ptolemy around the early secondcentury A.
developed this theory to explainthe motions of the planets.
As the planets orbitaround the Sun, and we orbit around the Sun, too, it makes forvery complex motion.
The planets as well as the Sunand the Moon seemed to move in a west to east directionalong the ecliptic, the plane of the Earth's orbitaround 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 wasdifficult to explain if you think the Earth isthe center of things — the Geocentric Theory — like the ancients did.
So what Ptolemy came upwith is a very complex model where you had a planet not justorbiting around the Earth, but you had it orbitingon a smaller circle called the epicycle.
And the epicycle in turnwent around the Earth, and if you adjust the sizesof those two circles and the speeds, you can end up withthis motion like this where the planet seemsto move backwards.
And this was a ruling cosmologyfor 15 centuries, from really the 2nd century upthrough the 17th century.
Now, as new data came alongand problems developed so that you had a discrepancybetween the theory and the data, they simply altered the theory— added more epicycles to make the theory work and fit.
That was the strengthof the model that you could adjust it to fitanything new that came along.
Well, it was also the undoing because it becamevery complicated.
By the year 1600, there were systemsof more than 100 epicycles.
You had gears on gearson gears on gears.
And people realisedthis is way too complex.
And finally it was rejected.
And the Big Banghas done the same thing, it's been the ruling paradigmfor 50 years and in that length of time I've seentremendous changes take place.
In the early 1980s wehad this Big Bang model that seemed pretty matureand they were convinced that this Big Bangmodel was true.
But since then, a lot of changeshave taken place.
They changed the expansion rateof the universe which decreased the agefrom 16-18 billion years to 13.
8 billion plusor minus 1 percent.
They've introduced string theoryinto the model.
This is the thing dealing with particle physicsyou have to put in.
They've introduced dark matter.
They've introduced dark energy.
They've introduced this ideaof cosmic inflation, that the universeexpanded very rapidly in the early universeto solve a couple of problems that they have.
By the way, there's no evidence for inflation but everybodybelieves it happened because basically we'rehere, aren't we.
I've seen in my adult lifetimenumerous changes taking place to the Big Bang theory and it's startingto look like epicycles.
It's starting to looklike the Ptolemaic model.
Just as the strengthof that model was that you could change it to fitnew problems and data, they're doing the same thingwith the Big Bang and changing it.
You know, they hadthe COBE experiment 1989 to 91.
It was measuringlittle fluctuations in temperature predicted in the background radiation, thesupposed proof of the Big Bang.
And they had predictedfluctuations in temperature from point to pointone part in 10, 000.
Well they found fluctuationsone part in a 100, 000 — a factor of 10 less.
And afterwards they saidthat the predictions and the actual measurementsbeautifully agreed.
Saying, “ Wait a minute, how can that be? ” What they did isthey changed the model to fit the data once again.
You know, if you haverules like that you can never disprove a theory.
One of the fundamentalassumptions that the Big Bang is based upon is that there's a homogeneityof the universe, that it's kind of smooth, it makes the mathematicswork out easier, by the way.
And we recognize that on the local level it'skind of clumpy — we have planets and stars and so forth, but then you have galaxiesand groups of galaxies and galaxies working the way up.
It's kind of assumed that on the biggest scalethat that sort of smooths out.
But what we foundover 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 talkabout it much anymore, but the problem isthis… we're now, really, poised to make what we think is the structureof the universe on the grandest scalesand it's clumpy all the way up.
And what most people failto realize is this negates the very foundation upon whichthe Big Bang is based — the assumption of homogeneity.
It's not homogeneous anywhere.
It's been an article of faith that at some levelit is homogeneous despite all evidenceto the contrary.
And we're seeing it on the likethe giga-light year scale now.
It's across the entire universe.
And so the Big Bang has become the ruling paradigmand it is becoming doctrine, it's becoming dogma.
So much so that morethan a dozen years ago, I think in the NewScientist magazine, there was an open letterprotesting the Big Bang theory and it's had hundredsof signatories since.
Most of the peoplesigning it are atheists! They’re not even creationists! So, this idea that the Big Bang modelis universally accepted is not true.
There are many people out there, well-known people, very famous physicsand astronomy people that have real problemswith the Big Bang.
So, I think when you lookat the history of science, the way we've discardedtheories over time, you've had theoriesthat are supposedly beyond dispute and thenlater on discarded, when you see that lesson fromhistory and then you want to we d Genesis, you want to interpret Genesis in termsof the ruling paradigm … I think we needto be very careful.
Well, all of this, Danny, just brings me back againto the awe associated with all that God has done.
The immensity of it! Yeah.
You know, we've beenout for quite a while and the summer stars have kindof gotten out of the way and the autumn starshave moved across.
We're now getting a lotof winter stars up here.
And I want to pointthose out to you.
One of my favoriteconstellations up there is Orion.
Do you know Orion? That's a really good one.
But it's also mentioned in the Old Testamentthree times — twice in Job, once in Amos.
You know, when Ilook up at Orion, I'm seeing aboutthe same thing Job saw because those stars are hundredsof light years away and even though they're moving, they haven't changedin 4000 years, really, the shape is about the same.
But you know, there's a connectionI can make to a man who's been gonefor thousands of years, but more important than that, of course, is that I should makethe connection to our Creator because God was challengingJob about the fact that He created allof these things….