Lesson 7/16: Astronomy and Physics

[aitkensE04xXxRecon]

So wait is he supporting the idea that the earth is less than 10000 years old or not? Somebody pls thx.

[cookiedidone]

You should get money for this!

[hugesinker]

@5:20 I know it's wrong, but I lol'd when that photo appeared. XD

[dcrmsmith55]

He purposely leaves out a viable option for the solution to the problem. Light is a constant but time is not. Time is affected by both gravitation and the speed of light. If the universe was created in one place and then 'stretched out' ,as the Bible says, the affect would have time passing slowly in the centre and passing extremely fast where space and matter are being stretched out. Thus a viable scientific solution that fits observable data and the Bible

[Majoofi]

that was fun

[moragbedslug]

boo!

[richardaberdeen]

I have no quarrel with claims the universe is very old. According to the Genesis story, the sun wasn't created until the 4th "day", thus these are clearly not 24 hr days. Nevertheless, this video contains several errors. Many modern physicists suspect the speed of light is not constant and, the reference to Occam's Razor, often misused by atheists, proves nothing. The simplest theory is not necessarily correct, nor can universal functionality necessarily be explained in a trillion volumes.

[DoKtaTre]

The Super-Nova issue is similar:

we see them because they WERE nearer.

On the fact that they happened b4 the fall:

We CALL IT "star death," but is it alive in the biblical sense? Does it have blood?

Leviticus 17 & 11 says that life is in the blood.

The bible also makes references to the "breath of life." What would stars 'breathe'? vacuums?

[glovergj]

If what you saying were true, then you couldn't see any distant supernova because their wavelengths would be stretch right out of the visible spectrum. You don't understand the first thing about physics. The fact is, when the light is observed from distant supernova explosion, it is not stretched out. And supernova that decay to pulsars also show not trent towards longer periods with distance. Face it -- the universe could not have been stretched out that much that quickly.

[DoKtaTre]

You really think the wavelengths you've measured TODAY...from this distance...is the fastest (tightest) it's ever been? Besides, dude..."the universe could not have been stretched out that much that quickly."

Really? I thought we were talking about GOD here...must just be my "ignorance"...

[glovergj]

If the speed of light had changed at all, we could measure it as we look deeper into space. The reason is that light coming from further away would have slowed down more than light generated close. This would manifest itself in lower energy (longer wavelengths and frequencies) for the same types of emissions. Since we don't see any of that, it obviously didn't happen.

[glovergj]

Even if God miraculously preserved the light en route, the duration of the emissions would have to be shortened or the energy wouldn't add up.  Give it up man -- face rreality.

[fmanh]

@DoKtaTre Yes. Its your ignorance. and lack of knowledge. Go read a book. Or two.

[DoKtaTre]

I'm a YEC & I'd never even heard of "the speed-of-light-decay theory." The bible explains that paradox in Jeremiah 51 & 15, where it states that God is stretching out the heavens (implying it is CONTINUOUS).

The issue isn't how the light traveled that distance in a short time, but that the distance has been increased (gradually) when the light was already here.

[glovergj]

You are a fool. You can't stretch out the medium of light (empty space) without stretching out the light's wavelength. If what you are saying is true, then distant light would be at much lower frequency -- much more than even what we see in the redshift. Get a clue!

[DoKtaTre]

Oh, I agree I** can't...matter-of-fact, there isn't a whole lot **I** could do...but I THOUGHT we were talking about an INFINITE BEING here...one that has NO LIMITS? One that's possibilities are ENDLESS? One that...

;) Face it Gordon, the possibility of Creationism being true makes sense to the RATIONAL mind...it's only b/c everyone is INFLUENCED by the enemy & his minions that they'll continue to deny it.

[neoaeonian]

Mr. G,

These videos are excellent.

2 Small caveats. The furtherest viewed objects are over 13B light years distance, and I've heard astronomer's estimates that the Universe is over 50B Light Years in size though the age of the universe limits how far back we could see)

But it is so good to see a Christian who understands how hard most scientists work to understand things, That they aren't just making it up.

Huge Kudos to you!

[ChristynClay]

this Q mite be a lil off the topic..

how fast is the speed of sight?

we know how long it takes light to come to us.

but how long dose it take us to see what is there. why do we think that the speed of sight is the same as the speed of light. i think science over looked that......i hope i spelled this right since i never bin to school... your youtube buddy WX

[glovergj]

Hi. There is no such thing as the speed of sight. An image will not register in your brain until the light from that object is captured by your eyes. So the speed of light is the only thing that determines how long it takes us to register a distant object.

[Randomicity912]

I think he means the time it takes for the information to travel through the optic nerve and then for the brain to process it. So the speed of light, plus the nerve's informational transfer rate plus the brain's processing rate.

[chaOsMastaGuru]

the speed of light isn't measured by actually shining light into your eyes and calculating the time difference.

[neoaeonian]

There is a speed of sight in one sense..

It's roughly 1/72nd of a second from the time something hits your retina until the time you mentally register it. (I get this from the rate that frames have to go, if viewing fast motion high resolution, for the seperate frames to not be visible). At standard 24-30Fps images are slightly blurred to hide the frames.

But, as Glover says, this has nothing to do with the difference between the time it takes to see the sun, vs. the moon, for instance.

[mejc2]

If a Doctor examined Adam one day after creation, How old would he estimate Adam to be? Given his size, the length of his hair, his mature teeth, the density of his bones, would the doctor say this man is one day old?

Why then do you suppose that you could determine the age of the universe by examining it?

Even Einstein admitted there needs to be a supernatural force to have started natural forces.

[glovergj]

If an 80-year old man told you that he was just born 34 millisenconds ago, would you believe his "Word" or would you accept what your sense plainly tell you?

The difference bewteen 34 milliseconds and 80 years is about the same as the difference between 6000 years and 14 billion years. And the universe is clearly not 6000 years old just as the old man is clearly not 34 millseconds old.

Einstein addmitted no such thing, although he was a deist. Your quote sounds more like Aristotle.

[mejc2]

I wouldn't believe an 80 year old man telling me that. However, if the most accurate ancient text known to my civilization said that the earth was created, and a kid from college said I don't believe that I think that first there was nothing then it expanded and then molecules bumped into each other by accident and created a finely tuned universe and the intricate interrelated ecosystem, I wouldn't take the word of the kid from college over the ancient historical document. It was Einstein.

[glovergj]

Most accurrate? You're kidding, right? The Bible is many wonderful things, but it is not in any way a reliable account of ancient history.

On the other hand, we can directly observe the antiquity of the cosmos with own eyes and instruments by looking up to the heavens and down into the earth.

Einstein was a deist who only believed in an impersonal clockmaker God.  You can't call yourself a Christian and believe in such a God.

[mejc2]

The bible is the most accurate ancient text that exists on the planet. Your ignorance of that fact doesn't change the facts.

You cannot observe antiquity. you can only suppose antiquity.

Einstein realized that the universe is impossible without a creator. I never said he was a christian.

[glovergj]

Relative to other ancient texts, you might be right -- since all ancient texts are loaded with error. But what you have to ask yourself is this: how do we know that ancient texts contain error? Because we now have other ways to learn about the past than simply by written records.

When we look up into the sky, we observe antiquity. I can see the Andromeda galaxy from my back yard, as it was 2.2 million years ago. When we look into the earth, we see an index of history more than 6000 yrs old.

[mejc2]

I MIGHT be right?

we can check written records against our observations. The bible says that Noah's family exited the ark somewhere in the middle east a few thousand years ago. Archaeology shows that civilization sprang from the middle east a few thousand years ago.

You presume antiquity.

The only reason you think you observe antiquity is because you presume naturalism. Those with a creationism point of view don't see antiquity.

[glovergj]

Now you are an archaeologist? Archaeology show no such thing. Modern man is traced back to the Horne of Africa about 150,000 years ago. By the time Noah supposedly stepped off the Arc, there were civilizations in China, Egypt, Europe, Australia and the Americas. Moreover, the distribution of plants and animals around the globe looks nothing a recent radiation from the mountains of Ararat. Not to mention there is no evidence of global flood whatsoever.

These are the facts.

[mejc2]

You got your facts wrong. I said civilization not genetic ancestry. and there are no civilizations that predate Noah. The earliest recorded is Mesopotamian.

[glovergj]

lol -- you seriously need to do your homework. There were civilizations in central and south america, china before, during and after the "flood". Apparently they didn't get the memo. Egypt was in its 6th dynasty! Even the Mesopotamian civilization you mention pre-date Noah.

You're losing credibility by the second.

[mejc2]

How long ago do you think Noah lived?

[JT898]

Might I suggest you watch this;

watch?v=iWjtRFNSl2s

Your version of "God just created it as is" as is meaningless and scientifically unverifiable as last Thursdayism or thinking that the universe was created this morning 'as is'. The universe that you believe God created is not open to any form of scientific investigation.

[mejc2]

Making up a story based on your observations and then changing it as you are proven wrong is just silly. you can't ever disprove it because it just changes with the new discoveries of God's creation. I know that the explanation that God did it is unprovable. However I didn't invent the story.

Evolutionists invented their fairy tale.

The Belief that God created it is based on the bible. You basically cherry pick the concepts you like and discard the concepts you don't like.

[EvoBiologist]

You're doing wonderful things for your religion and for the world. Thanks!

[Torrriate]

QUOTE: It is, in my opinion, unwise to accept unfalsifiable claims. - adamredwine.

I'm curious - what do you say about that, glovergj?

[glovergj]

Doesn't leave much room for faith, does it?

[homeostasis4me]

There seems to be very little room for faith, I agree. The bible claims to be the perfect word of God himself and, as you have shown in your videos, it most certainly is not perfect.What we are left with is one of 2 options:Man's interpretation of our world was inserted into God's formerly perfect book, or our understanding of matter and the universe is incorrect.Did the deluge happen?Jonah's fish?Was there a christ?Is his account in the book accurate?Did he feed the masses with 2 fish?Peace.

[glovergj]

It's the classic tension between natural and revealed religion....

Nature leaves us with a God that is not both all-powerful and perfect, but Scripture (combined with traditional views of inerrancy and infalilbility) leaves us with a God that is not all-knowing.

The right answer has to be where the "two books" overlap. A practical theology must integrate reason, experience, and revelation. IMHO.

[homeostasis4me]

I understand, thanks.Here's my take: why would you place faith in a book that claims to be infallible,in the creator's own words, when it is demonstrably not? Seems to me that if any of it is wrong then ALL is suspect.Why believe ANY of it? Peolpe have a hard time accepting that there is no God and consequentally no purpose to life. Notice I did not say there is no MEANING... All we have in this life is the moment we are in and the memory of it. People have a hard time coming to terms with that.

[homeostasis4me]

Please don't take my comments as abrasive, friend- I'm simply contributing my own 2 cents. The common argument I get from xtians is that without purpose, without a creator and his set of moral standards to live by, that life has no meaning and consequentally men will have no reason to treat each other with the kind care we give our children. Knowing that when I die I'm gone makes me live for the moment and helps me savor it's memory- I take time to smell the roses more CLOSELY as a result. Peace

[glovergj]

You have highlighted the problem with fundamentalism -- it reduces the Christian faith to faith in a book that is contains error. I believe that Christianity must be about the person and work of Christ, not what people wrote about it. Interestingly, none of the early Church creeds / confessions mention anything about the Bible! Probably because they lived in the shadow of those men who sorted through the various texts and decided which ones were to be cannonized.

Thanks for stopping by.

[homeostasis4me]

Right- but christianity is based upon the bible, and the bible and christianity both are based upon MUCH older pagan beliefs, and I think you know that.....at least by now, you should. Which leads me to my question- why do you continue to believe it? My guess is you were raised christian- am I right?

[glovergj]

Yes - I was raised Christian. All of what you say is true, and if I were a fuandamentalist, what I know about the Bible and the historical Jesus and the Christian tradition in general would probably make me lose my faith. But I am not a fundamentalist so it doesn't shake my worldview to face the facts. Likewise, were I raised a non-believer -- knowning what I know now would probably make me remain so. But I have experienced genuine Christian community and see no reason to abandon it.

[glovergj]

I can only explain it like this: when the scientific community has a theory that works well in explaining reality -- in making sense of the world by providing a systematic way of looking at it; a reference point by which things can be judged and evaluated -- they know that at any time new data might force them abandon this paradigm....(cont)

[glovergj]

(cont)...However, when data do threaten the system, a paradigm shift usually does not take place unless another system shows itself to be more useful than the original. In the absence of a viable alternative, It's always preferable to work around the limitations of a known system than to have nothing at all, or a system with just as many problems as the original.

If I were to leave Christianity and embrace athiesm, I would only be exchanging one set of inconsistencies for another.

[homeostasis4me]

As to atheism having inconsistencies, I'm not sure what you're getting at, as matter does not mean creator- that interpretive jump is made by philosophy.Athiesm, as I see it, is more supported by testable evidence than is theism.I guess that's the point, where faith is concerned.Thank you for your well-thought responses, friend.I'll be watching your videos, and I expect I will come away from them with a lot to think about.Thank you, sir. Best wishes...

[glovergj]

You might be interested in a book I'm currently reading called, "Adventures in the Spirit" by Philip Clayton. He attempts to explain how Christianity can be a "naturalitic faith" -- a belief system that does not not depend on the immaterial, accounds for the world as we observe it, yet does not depart to far from traditional beliefs. It is more pantheistic than traditional theism, but makes a lot of sense. Good luck in your search for the truth!

[adamredwine]

"Assumptions that can raise more problems than they can answer are simply not useful." (10:00) - Well, that pretty much wraps it up for your religion then doesn't it? The assumption that the bible is an accurate account of the nature of the universe raises a significant number of problems, including direct contradiction within the text, and answers nothing... unless your goal is to control large groups of people for your own gain that is.

[glovergj]

"The assumption that the bible is an accurate account of the nature of the universe raises a significant number of problems..." -- yes, that's my point. The only science in the bible is ancient science based on naked-eye observation.

[adamredwine]

What exactly do you mean by "ancient science"? Do you mean that the science of ancient times was different but still valid, or are you simply referring to the advancement of science up until that point in time?

[glovergj]

ancient science = the "scientific" consensus of acienct man. Just as Ptolemaic theory was the scientific consensus during medieval times... Static universe up to the 1920's... Big bang for our time, etc....

So your second statement more accurately captures what I'm trying to say.

[adamredwine]

Okay, I think that we don't actually disagree much (other than on the whole religion thing). I think it's more a communication thing. I agree that the bible is reflective of the contemporary scientific view. I also agree, by the way, that it was never intended to be read as a scientific textbook. Founders of religion are rarely so foolish as to make statements that can be disproved. It's the same reason fortune tellers usually predict events that will happen after they die.

[glovergj]

Or you may have assumed, since I am a Christian, that I was pushing some kook theories perhaps?

[adamredwine]

No, I don't assume that all religious people are kooks. You are much less kooky than the average. You actually allow comments on your videos!

I do still contend, however, that the predominate useful characteristic of religion is to control groups of people. Note carefully what I said in the penultimate sentence above. It is, in my opinion, unwise to accept unfalsifiable claims.

[bng44270]

I am disappointed if I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting a non-literal interpretation of the creation story?

[glovergj]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the word "literal". I certainly believe that the days of creation are 24-hour days, but I don't think we can use this information to calculate the age of the universe. I also believe that the firmament was a solid dome supporting a body of water above the heavenly bodies (just as all ancient Near-Eastern people believed), but that information is not relavent to us now, scientifically speaking. If you skipped, lessons 4-6, please go back and view them.

[bng44270]

When the Bible says, "In the Beginning", I take that to literally mean before anything.

When it says God created the "heavens", I take that to mean the whole of the universe.

Also, with the level of detail put into the Biblical records, what would be the purpose of God leaving out a few genealogical records? If this is incorrect, obviously part of the Gospel (the genealogy of Jesus) is incomplete also. This may be seemingly minor, but this information has a purpose.

[glovergj]

True, it has a purpose. But it's purpose can't be to date the earth. Not only does this stand at odds with other dating methods that give consistent results several orders of magnitute greater than adding up the genealogies, it also assumes that answering questions about earth's age was something that the Hebrews would have concerned themselves with as they left Egypt and headed for the Priomised Land.

I agree that in the beginning, God created the whole of the universe, just as it says.

[adamredwine]

"the firmament was a solid dome..." ??? what? Are you kidding me? And you posted a video on astronomy and physics? Surely you can at least comprehend that a solid object enclosing a planet is gravitationally unstable. The slightest whisper of air would cause the entire thing to shift at an exponentially increasing rate and destroy a large segment of the planet.

[glovergj]

Relax. You're not understanding me. The firmament was an ancient near-eastern concept. It doesn't now, nor did it ever, exist. Did you even watch the video?

[jimmo42]

Wonderful!