Thank you and get things going here and you probably don't need me on the screen too much because I'm going through a lot of my presentation here oh wow this is awesome whoo that's loud uh forgive me if my voice is starting to go already I've been spending a lot of time talking with you guys out there it's been it's been wonderful you know they say a picture is worth a thousand words right well there you go Shortest presentation I've ever done thank you very much huh right there you go I've titled my presentation testing
the globe subtitle who really has the intellectual high ground in this discussion you know there's the four big questions mankind has wrestled with for millennia right Who am I why am I here where am i how did I get here I'm gonna talk more this is a two-part presentation this would be more sort of The philosophical part and then tomorrow I'll talk about the various physical evidences that pushed me over the edge so to speak so regarding the Who am I question now first of all my name is Rob Skiba the things that influenced my
life course my parents growing up I have one sister not depicted here but more faint my family is very close my dad was a Baptist minister when I was a kid I've been in the church my whole life as soon as I could read I was reading the Bible Had a King James Bible highlighted and annotated in grade school anytime the doors of the building were open I was there I accepted Christ as my savior at age seven and have been in some form of ministry my entire life that was 1977 when that happened and
now it just so happened to be the same year this movie came out Star Wars and of course that blew my young mind like wow that was amazing he had a profound influence in my life and Led me to the career that I've chosen that I do to this day as a filmmaker also I made a public declaration at age eight I said I will either be an astronaut a filmmaker or a movie star by the time I'm 30 or I'll be dead and it wasn't because I had a death wish I just figured when
you're 8 years old 30 like that's old man right so my thinking was if I hadn't achieved any of those things by the time I was it had to be because I was dead I don't Remember exactly when it was but at some point in my young life Jim Irwin supposedly Apollo astronaut from I think it was all Apollo 15 came to our church and signed that picture of him allegedly on the moon said reach for your dreams Rob aim high and I did immediately after I got out of high school I joined the army
oh and by the way that's me at age 18 with a Star Wars bedsheet yeah hard core science fiction nerd joined the military my whole plan was to learn how To fly helicopters get my commission transfer over to the Air Force learn how to fly jets get into the space program that was my ambition that was my dream that was what I was shooting for did very well and everything I did in the military I excelled at was soldier to the year 1991 there became a pilot by the time I was actually on my 21st
birthday I was in flight school and even after I got out of the military that didn't work out that my plans I had it's A long story I'll save that but basically it was a an issue that I thought I had with my heart that made me have to get a class one flight physical and do a stress test and all this stuff that basically anytime I was applying for the next level of my training I got bumped for things outside of my control and then years later father confirmed to me know your heart's fine
that just wasn't my plan for you all these years later I look back now and say thank God I never got into NASA but I left the military in 1993 and of course continued to be a sci-fi geek that's me going to Star Trek conventions in my 20s hanging out with with the Star Trek actors and stuff like that so yeah there was no incentive whatsoever for me to get into this topic that I'm talking about here today much less spend the rest of my life traveling on the world talking about it okay now before
getting into this topic I like to say to people look There's a few things that you must keep in mind and I talked about this at the press conference earlier this morning and also if you saw my presentation I did last year the years are about half of the volt points I talked about last year first thing you need to realize when you get into this research is look we to be you if you're just getting into this and you're really skeptical and you don't believe in it like we get it we Were there we
were you none of us belongs to the flatterer of society let's say it out loud together ready none of us belongs to the flatterer society so this is new to you okay don't go to the flower society to look at what's what are these people about they didn't sponsor this event they have nothing to do with it neither do we speaking of no one believes in the upward floating disc theory of gravity Media if you're in the room and you missed this morning pay attention look at the screen please we do not believe this okay
I can't tell you how many times I've seen news reports and stuff coming out saying those with letters does believe no we don't you can't just insert flat earth into the Copernican model of the universe you see memes like this all the time like flat earthers be yeah you know son 93 million miles right Mercury Venus pancake no we don't Believe that speaking of that particular meme Danny Faulkner just put out a book and I've seen this meme going around Danny Faulkner takes apart the Flat Earth movement in his new book falling flat look at
his front cover I think it should be retitled misrepresents the Flat Earth I'll just say this I've spent time talking with Danny I like him as a human being I think we could probably be friends I mean think it's pretty cool guy but when it comes to this issue He's like the arch-nemesis of Flat Earth but I'm gonna have to pull a grete on you Danny how dare you how many of these conferences have you been to how much of our stuffing you know we don't believe that so that's a complete misrepresentation but he's not
the only one there's plenty of others out there doing it the same thing all the news media does it rational wiki that on their Flat Earth entry says it's Basically this and they got the same picture no that's not true and number five for Christians the Bible is a Flat Earth book from cover to cover I'm sorry it just is so that's part one of my presentation I'm just gonna go through this real quick others will be talking about it this weekend of course if you're familiar with my work plenty of stuff on this online
but essentially when you look through the Scriptures I appreciate Logos Bible Software the scholars over there at Logos Bible Software do not believe the earth is flat say that again with me they do not believe the earth is flat okay they don't believe it but they believe that the people who wrote the Bible did which creates an interesting problem for them it's like look you you just make a really articulate case for this is what the words mean this is what they clearly believed and then you say you don't Believe it so I don't know
what's up with that but that this is their depiction of the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe I've gone a little deeper this is not thus saith the Lord okay this is thus think it's Rob I'm not telling you this is where you live I'm telling you this is what I see in my mind when I look at the ancient text as an artist this is what I come up with and according to all the references you see there we see that we live in a Self-contained three-tiered system of heaven earth the underworld there is
a solid firmament dome vault over us cording text you see there yahoo is the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton that i've chose that i don't get into fights with people about this some say Yahweh the King James says Jehovah Jehovah look we're talking about four consonants and we're doing the best we can the pronunciation I've landed on is you who us so if you hear that that's what I'm Referring to is the name of God who has throne sits above the heavens the waters according to text you see there the earth is inscribed in a circular
flat fashion into something with four corners and surrounded by water according to the text you see that she there the Sun Moon and stars are in the firmament and by the way all the stars are going to fall to earth according to Isaiah Yeshua Jesus Christ the Son of God himself Peter and John the stars are falling to Earth there are fluid we got big problems of Betelgeuse is headed our way you know and followed by AM drama da right somebody's lying to us here and I'm not prepared to say this Isaiah Yeshua Peter or
John there are flood gates windows in the firmament earth is a geocentric stationary world set on pillars indeed from Genesis to Revelation the earth is consistently described by holy spirit-inspired authors as fixed and not moving spinning Orbiting etc circular with edges corners pillars foundations etc under a dome within which the Sun Moon and stars replaced on day four inside that structure that I showed min ago is something that like the footstool of God right there and I say look which model is a better fit for a stationary world set on a firm foundation of pillars
under a solid dome within which the Sun Moon and stars move and which will accommodate all the stars Falling to earth I think it's a pretty easy answer when you look at that of course those who disagree who think the Bible it doesn't say this they only got two scriptures to it actually neither one of them work for them they have Isaiah's circle the earth and Jove hangs the earth on nothing neither one of them work for them hangs the earth on nothing the model that they believe is the earth and the Copernican model is
literally hung on the gravity of the Sun so you Can't even use that one and circle doesn't it doesn't mean ball doesn't mean sphere for me though it really was the firmament that was the one that just men it's sealed a deal in more ways than one unquestionably the thing is hard firm supporting the waters above attached to the earth within which Yahoo a place of Sun Moon and stars and upon which his throne sits clearly this is a very important issue to yahuwah the only model that accommodates every aspect of The firmament is the
circular enclosed world model the only way around this is to grossly misrepresent the scriptures yanking the true meanings of the words used out of context and fantasizing about definitions for those words which are not even remotely supported by the text nor the historical context in which the scriptures were written interestingly enough I think this was just last week some news articles came out just recently science says our Understanding of the cosmos could be fundamentally wrong astronomers say says our understanding of the universe could be fundamentally wrong scientists have said newly released data from the plank
or clock on the Chery pronounced a telescope which aimed to take very precise readings of the shape size and ancient history of our universe suggests that there could be something wrong in our physics according to a new paper the the issue could be an indication of a Crisis in cosmology that may be as yet unrealized because of problems with our understanding of the shape of the universe the authors of the new paper write scientists have long been convinced the universe was shaped like a sheet of paper interesting they think the universe is flat so why
are they getting so upset about us we're talking about the earth being flat but a new paper suggests that could be wrong and it's not flat but rather Closed the authors of new papers say that it is correct if it is correct that the data from the telescope there suggests we are inside a closed universe interesting other articles coming out same thing you know this was like all just last week so perfect setup for us it reminds me of a quote I heard quite some time ago by an individual named Robert Jastrow for the scientist
who has lived his who has lived by his faith in the power of reason the story ends like A bad dream he has scaled the mountain of ignorance he is about to conquer the highest peak as he pulls himself over the final rock he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries I think that's exactly what's starting to happen in mainstream science now what I hear from people all the time especially people who don't agree with what I'm saying here is Rob you're making Christians look stupid if you Guys
heard that before this is making Christians look stupid okay if that's your big concern if that's what you're so concerned about I'm gonna help you out here all right here's a newsflash for you we already look stupid pretty much everybody else out there that don't believe the same way we do I mean here are just a few of the crazy things we already believe in a six-day creation they tell us we the universe is almost 14 billion years old to say that it was created into six literal days completely absurd we believe in two magic
trees a talking snake Moses split the Red Sea with a staff that used to be a snake that could eat other staffs that turned into snakes interesting a dude with a talking donkey like on Shrek the walls of Jericho come tumbling down the trumpet blasts Joshua commanded the Sun and the moon the standstill Wow that's pretty crazy the length of a Man's hair gave him superhuman strength see I'm growing my hair out a few guys chilling out in a fiery furnace remaining unharmed a dude spends three days and three nights inside a fish then gets
out starts preaching here's a big one for you a savior born of a virgin who walked on water did miracles died rose again in three days hung out for a few more weeks then flew up at the sky like Superman with the promise of returning on a flying horse followed by A floating city there are a lot more that I just couldn't fit on one slide okay so if your big concern is looking stupid just embrace the madness but you know I knocked on our side of it a little bit here let's look at some
really stupid things let's look at modern cosmology in science that I believe Scripture rightly defines as falsely so called let's look at real stupid if you've heard the game you ever play the game whisper down the Lane whispered ina line right who is most likely to have the truth the one closest or the one farthest away from the original source information closest right so the further back we go we see almost unanimously across the ancient world they believe we're on a circular still flat earth set on pillars under a dome within which other Sun Moon
and stars now there are variants within to the cultures but essentially you got the same model flash-forward to the end of The line you know I heard we live on a spinning heliocentric ball on an ever expanding universe something change down the line right now when we think about the ancient past who's smarter us or them I mean the further back we go on time the more we start seeing stuff like this megalithic structures and all kinds of stuff that people just can't even today with all our modern science and technology we can't figure out
how they did it so what's the solution Ah Italy ins must have done it let me think about it we're so smart we think we came from monkeys and we don't even know what gender we are anymore I mean how smart are we modern science is telling us that genders flu it no I got news for you it's not what's between your ears this what's between your legs that determines you gender you know for thousands of years six thousand years recorded human history nobody regardless of race color Creed religion doesn't matter baby pops all I've
got something hanging down there great hey it's a boy no no it's a girl that's awesome right if you want to get scientific got it extra Y chromosome boy I got 2x girl the fact that I actually have to explain this in the 21st century is proof of entropy we're not getting better we're getting worse way worse days of Noah yeah way worse the only reason they think that way is because of evolution so let's go after That let's talk about evolution and the big questions of how did we get here here's a video that
explains more or less the current view of modern cosmology sound I created the universe went largely unchallenged until the Middle Ages when scientists made a sacrilegious suggestion based on their observations the Sun not the earth was at the center of the universe it was a paradigm shift there is now Another way to explain the naturally occurring phenomena around us and this is science since the Middle Ages scientists have developed sophisticated new theories about the enormity of the universe and our place in it theories that often have no room for God many phenomena have appeared mysterious
or miraculous or magical and then through the process of science we've eventually understood them Scientists gradually realized that the Sun really is just one star among a multitude of stars in a gigantic galaxy having hundreds of billions of such stars and all this was created in a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago but while scientific theories observations and experiments tell us where we are in the cosmos they don't answer the eternal questions why we're here and who if anyone created us the amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a Star that
exploded and the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand it really is the most poetic thing I know about physics you are all Stardust you couldn't be here it stars hadn't exploded because the elements the carbon nitrogen oxygen iron all the things that matter for evolution word created at the beginning of time there created the nuclear furnaces of stars and the only way they can get into your body is if The stars were kind enough to explode so forget Jesus the stars died so that you could be
here today by the end of the 1920s astronomer Edwin Hubble working with the large 100-inch telescope atop Mount Wilson outside Los Angeles had established that our galaxy was only one of many galaxies in the universe we look out at other galaxies on average they're moving away from us and those that are twice as far away or moving twice as fast and those are three Times as far far away moving three times as fast and of course that makes us look like we're in the center of the universe such a condition would imply that we occupy
a unique position in the universe analogous in a sense to the ancient conception of the central earth this hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena therefore we disregard this possibility the unwelcome position of a Favorite location that must be avoided at all costs such a favorite position is intolerable several decades ago we found a problem a problem so great that it was brushed under the carpet for many a decade and this is the fact that galaxies spin too fast in
fact ten times too fast by right the galaxies should fly apart therefore scientists said that we have to have dark a halo of matter that surrounds the galaxy and holds the Galaxies together and what have they discovered absolutely nothing zilch what is a little bit perturbing is that after 50 years we still haven't found what the dark doesn't mean they're not there it just means that harder to find than we thought we look out in the universe and 85% of all the gravity that's out there has some mysterious unknown source we add up all the
stars the galaxies the planets the Comets the black holes the dark Clouds everything out there that we can see touch smell or taste and it doesn't add up to give us the gravity that we see operating in this universe so really we should be calling it the dark force because we don't know if it's made of matter could be a profound misnomer sending people off in thought directions that might not really be the right path so dark matter is just simply what we call this thing about which we know nothing responsible for 85% of the
Gravity of the cosmos it is the longest standing unsolved problem in modern astrophysics dark matter dark energy everything we know about the universe what we're made of galaxies stars planets that's all right here so according to this chart we are 96% stupid so the problem with cosmology is that we keep inventing theories ad hoc theories to try to explain the data such as inflation dark matter dark energy and so On just to keep patching the theory up there is a crisis in cosmology usually in science if we're off by a factor of two or a
factor of ten we called home we said something's wrong with the theory we're not by a factor of ten however in cosmology we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120 that is one with a hundred and twenty zeroes after this is the largest mismatch between theory and experiment in the history of science a very large number of universes perhaps even an Infinite number could in principle exist in a vast hyperspace we can understand the idea of hyperspace by comparing it to a mug of beer would be the hyperspace and the bubbles would be
these individual universes the bubbles in a beer mug are all physically about the same but suppose they span a range of properties some of them might have carbon and oxygen and stars and gravity and others don't we would be in one of the ones that Leads to a rich complex universe culminating with life as we know it if there are an infinite number of other universes the fine-tuning that seems to be present in ours isn't an example of God's plan but rather the law of statistics most of these universes wouldn't naturally develop in ways that
fostered intelligent life but a few would so then the explanation for the specialness of the universe is that we are winners in a gigantic cosmic lottery It stands to reason that we couldn't be living and discussing this in a universe that was hostile to life only the bio-friendly ones get populated with thinking beings having a multitude of universes is actually quite a simple and natural consequence of some of the most favored models for the birth and early evolution of our universe it's kind of like stars and planets as long as you have the capacity to
make one it's easy to make Lots of them oh really [Laughter] Multi bubble verse really they're farting out beer bubble universes okay that's what they're doing hey I got an idea parents yep multi beer bubble universe and they call that science and they make fun of us really yeah I'm not gonna take that from them anymore I'm not gonna sit here and let people who think they came from monkeys out of a beer bubble universe Ridicule me for looking into what I'm looking into and considering you know possibility if you guys can think about beer
bubble universes then I could think about a snow globe fair enough okay let's move on thank you that's what they're calling science so again Christian if you're worried about looking stupid look at what they believe Wow it just gets crazier and crazier I mean talking about being off by ten to one Hundred and twentieth power really I think Nikola Tesla had it right and he's starting to see it already in his day in the beginning of 20th century right highest today scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and they wander off through equation after equation and
eventually built a structure which has no relation to reality that's exactly what's happening and you see more and more articles popping up like this this is just from a Few months ago April 30th 2019 Scientific American cosmology has some big problems there's a if you read the article it talks about it's at this individual right here says compounding this problem most observations of the universe occur experientially and indirectly pay attention here today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable Parameters in which the model
that they've concocted in their head is involved every step of the way the framework literally frames the problem it defines our determinant scuse me where and how to observe and so despite the advanced technologies and methods involved the profound limitations to the endeavor also increased the risk of being led astray by the kind of assumptions that cannot be calculated he goes on to say a key piece of the Big Bang paradigm was criticized but one of the theories original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory why because inflation Theory relies on ad hoc
contrivances and to accommodate almost any data and because this proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification this is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable Big Bang to a physics we can recognize Today so is it science or convenient invention he concludes his article by admitting quote in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe we must accept that 95% of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever I just
summarize that by saying you know what what is taught today as fact is really nothing more Than proven ad hoc theories based on presupposition derived from outlandish conjecture which itself was contrived from sheer fantasy all of which ends up beautifully illustrated by the hands of artists and published in textbooks as self-evident truth that's what science has turned into today all right so let's move from the origin of the cosmos to issues of the earth and talking about the age of the earth and so so forth how Old is the earth and how do we know
well for a long time there's been sort of this war between the ideas of uniformitarianism versus the older ideas of catastrophism Charles Lyell's multi-volume principles of geology was published in the early 1830s it subtitle was an attempt to explain the former changes the Earth's surface by reference to courses or causes now in operation he was one of the major advocates for of an idea known as uniformitarianism that the Earth was shaped entirely by slow moving forces still in operation today acting over a very long period of time this stood in direct opposition to catastrophism which
described geological changes coming about as the result of abrupt violent changes thus characters like Charles Lyell looked at the stripes in the rocks right and he just assumed millions of years you know proved not nothing that's the best this you know that's this is best explanation right There but is it really the best explanation for what we see in how accurate are our dating methods to begin with I'm reminded of an analogy Kent Hovind you used to give talking about a creationist and an evolutionist looking out over the Grand Canyon one of them looks at
the Grand Canyon and says wow look at what the Colorado River did over millions of years and the creationist says wow look with the flood of noah did in a couple days you know your Preconceived biases how you look at the thing now I already told you I come from a biblical worldview so let's have a look at what the Bible has to say is a more plausible explanation for some of these things and interestingly enough as a young person I stumbled across the works of this guy right here how many have you ever heard
of Immanuel Velikovsky anybody I'm not a lot of people here a couple interesting books right they're Worlds in collision and earth and upheaval those two books actually were instrumental in leading my dad to Christ in a bar in Vietnam a guy was selling books there he got those books started reading him and my dad was more like an agnostic at the time but it got him to begin to question the paradigm and evolutionary thought and whatnot eventually he became a Christian himself so those two books have quite a bit of meaning to me on a
personal level But here's a little video I cut together from some of the creation ministries talking about a better explanation for the geological features and the dating of the earth isn't there evidence for for millions of years and how do we understand all that well first of all let's look at what the Bible says if you take the days of creation as ordinary days and you take all those genealogies and scripture if you add it all up five days before Adam from Adam to Abraham And then you add up from Abraham until today you get
about six thousand years now for what about all the dating methods that seem to indicate billions of years actually there are hundreds and hundreds of dating methods that you can use to age date things on the earth see one creation scientist I know makes this faith and he says 90% of the methods you can use to age day things on the earth contradict the billions of years only 10% even seem to give the billions of Years but all dating methods have fallible assumptions the only every textbook and science magazine teaches that the earth is billions
of years old and the primary dating method used for determining this is what is called radioisotope dating or radiometric dating now this is a reliable method for measuring absolute ages of rocks and the age of the earth right first off many scientists now regard the age of the earth to be between four point five five And 4.6 billion years old okay so if this method is reliable and accurate why the fifty million year discrepancy that seems like a lot but let's get into some details here and see what's going on keep in mind there's all
kinds of scientific jargon on this topic and so we'll just present a very straightforward simplified version metric dating is the process of estimating the ages of rocks based on the decay Oh pain to other kinds of Atoms for instance uranium will radioactively decay through a series of steps until it becomes the stable element called lead the original element is called the parent element and the end result is called the daughter element radioisotope dating is commonly used to date igneous rocks rocks which formed when hot molten material cooled and solidified the dating clock started when the
during the molten State it is assumed That the intense heat forced any gaseous daughter elements to escape it is assumed that once the rock cooled no more atoms escaped in any daughter element now found in the rock as a result of radioactive decay since that rock formed the decay rate is measured in terms of half-life that is the length of time it takes half of the remaining atoms of a radioactive parent element to decay now of course that can be measured in a Laboratory and it is assumed that since we know that decay rate we
can calculate backwards and come up with the age of the rock but is that all there is to it here's where it gets tricky it's true we can measure a decay rate using observational science but there's another kind of science that is required to accurately calculate dates for rocks and that is what we call historical science historical science deals with the things in the past and therefore Cannot be repeated and tested dating methods require both types of science because in order to get accurate Rock dates one would have to accurately know both the decay rate
and the initial conditions of the rock sample right since radioisotope dating uses both types of science we can't directly measure the ages of rock there are assumptions involved for instance how do we know what the initial conditions were in the rock sample how do we know the Amounts of parent or daughter elements now in that sample haven't been altered by other processes in the past how does someone know the decay rate has remained constant since the rock formed the answer is they don't let's simplify here and talk about a typical hourglass let's say you walk
into a room and you see an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom and some sands sprinkling from the top chamber to the bottom well observational science would allow Us to see and measure the sand and then calculate how long the hourglass has been running right we could make our sand measurements and then calculate when the hourglass was turned over right well those calculations could be wrong because we may have failed to consider some major assumptions like was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was turned over as any
sand been added or taken out of the hourglass as the sand always been falling at a Constant rate since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass started and we haven't been watching the sand all the time since then we must make assumptions all three of those assumptions can affect our time calculations now of course there's more than understanding all this but the Earth's surface is scarred by deep canyons cut into solid rock but how did they form a little bit of water over a long time or a little bit of time with
a Lot of water modern rivers don't generally cut downward into the solid rock so today's River erosion seems incapable of explaining rock canyons the great flood of the Bible however provides a possible explanation for such canyons on May 18 1980 mount st. Helens located 95 miles south of Seattle Washington erupted the eruption was triggered by an earthquake centered beneath the mountain that measured five point one on the Richter Scale the lateral blast swept out the north side of Mount st. Helens at 300 miles per hour with temperatures as high as 660 degrees Fahrenheit and the
power of 24 megatons of thermal energy it snapped 100 year old trees like toothpicks and stripped them of their bark now eventually lava flows formed a new dome five new adults actually all of which were destroyed by subsequent eruptions but the sixth dome that formed between October 1980 and 86 is what you See today is composed of 2.6 billion cubic feet of lava and it's quite young having finished forming just over 30 years ago well in 1996 geologists sent rocks from the lava dome to be radiometrically dated now they used a method called potassium argon
well scientists measured how much potassium and how much argon are in the rock and they calculate the age of the rock right but creation scientists have pointed out for years that there are Some major problems with radiometric dating one big one is the assumptions that it's grounded on you must assume that they half-life is constant and that it never varies you have to assume that there was no contamination for example no argon was present in the sample before the decay began well that's a lot of unprovable assumptions now if radiometric dating and the assumptions that
is founded on were accurate wool then Mount st. Helens Rocks should have yielded very young ages after all the rock was merely about a decade old you see the problem is they did housing years when they dated the minerals within the rock the problem got much worse they gave dates of 2.4 million years this is for a 10 year old rock now Mount st. Helens highlighted that we shouldn't blindly trust the dates given by radiometric dating the assumptions clearly aren't accurate so the dates That they give are also inaccurate instead of trusting a method that
doesn't even give correct ages for rocks of known age well maybe we should trust the Bible's history which tells us that our earth is around 6,000 years old before the famous eruption at Mount st. Helens scientists were mostly familiar with slow-acting examples of geologic change but at Mount st. Helens geologists watched the Earth's surface change quite rapidly Icebergs were buried in hot avalanche material they melted and formed badlands in days eruptions on May 18 and June 10 produced fine layers in hours on June 10 mud flows cut zigzag canyons 100 feet deep in soft sand
and mud complete with perpendicular side canyons canyons that are reminiscent of the geography of Grand Canyon only 40 times smaller and clearly produced within hours at mount st. helens a single mud fell off the mountain Carved engineer's Canyon out of soft sediments in a single day 100 feet deep and the same thing even happened in solid rock a series of mud flows created LeWitt and steppe canyons on the front face of mount st. helens cutting hundreds of feet into solid rock over just a few years Grand Canyon is a good example where we find evidence
of catastrophic forces at work upstream is evidence of huge lakes these Lakes would never have formed if the canyon were Already open below them however if these Lakes had formed from rains after Noah's Flood and if the pressure of these waters broke through and carved through the recently deposited sediments then we would expect to find Serge deposits down stream below Grand Canyon this is precisely what we find evidence of a lot of water cutting over a little bit of time even though Mount st. Helens is a very small catastrophe compared to the flood Or the
major catastrophes immediately following the flood it provides a better clue to what happened in those times than the slow geologic processes which are most commonly seen in the present all right now that we've established that the Big Bang is complete note or nonsense and our dating methods are also full of crap let's take a look at the absurdity of biological evolution this is a typical description of Biological evolution you might see charts and things of like like this made out of a blob or in the image of God Darwin in the standard model of evolution
right how many of you have heard that we share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees have you guys heard that before taught in school you know that's one of the reasons they say where we evolved from apes because we supposedly share 98% of our genome with chimps okay but The clip I'm about to show you is not from a creationist it's from an evolutionary minded group of people describing how they got those numbers check it out compare the chimp and human genomes those single-letter differences were easy to tally but the big mismatch sections weren't for
example if a genetic paragraph thousands of letters long appears twice in a human scroll but only once in it's chimp counterpart Should that second human copy count as thousands of changes or just one and what about identical paragraphs that appear in both genomes but in different places or in reverse order were broken up into pieces rather than monkey around with these difficult questions the researcher simply excluded all the large mismatched sections a whopping 1.3 billion letters in all and performed a letter by letter comparison on the remaining 2.4 billion which turned out To be 98.7
7 percent identical so yes we share 99% of our DNA with chimps if we ignore 18 percent of their genome and 25 percent of ours yeah that makes sense what that wouldn't make sense in any other context nobody would buy that right Wow okay this is why more and more science scientists even secular scientists are starting to steer away from the standard Darwinian model it's so full of holes and assumptions in fact when Francis Crick and James Watt James Watson discovered DNA they immediately knew this could not have evolved by random chance mutation so what
is their solution aliens aliens must have done it right the late Nobel Prize winner professor Francis Crick along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed a theory of directed panspermia in 1973 a co-discoverer of the double helical structure of DNA molecule Crick found it impossible that the complexity Of DNA could have evolved naturally so good thing Giorgio wasn't around back then right panspermia I don't know they're for aliens the idea of panspermia was born the idea of ancient aliens must have seeded our world kick-started evolution and this is now becoming the new standard thus when asked
if intelligent design was a plausible solution to the evolution of man this is what Professor Richard Dawkins had to say to teach the Controversy to teach both theories but there aren't two theories there's only one theory around there's only one one game in town as far as serious science is concerned of course you've got negative reactions from creationists but who cares about creationists they don't know anything we're a johnny-come-lately we live in the cosmic boondocks we emerged from microbes in monkey Apes or our cousins you don't believe that the earth is round only if you're
an Astronaut you don't believe Napoleon existed only if you're a historian you believe these things because their facts proved by evidence evolution is also a demonstrated fact the truth really is out there it's not a matter of opinion you have you have written that God is a psychotic delinquent invented by mad deluded people no I didn't say quite that I said something rather better than that oh well I would have to read it from from From the book no please the god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction jealous
and proud of it a petty unjust unforgiving control-freak a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser a misogynistic homophobic racist infanticidal genocidal Phyllis idle pestilential megalomaniacal sadomasochistic capriciously malevolent bully so that's what you think of God yeah So you believe it's liberating to tell people that there is no God I think a lot of people when they give up God feel a great sense of release and freedom well then he did create their ones in the earth why do you use the word who you see you you you immediately beg the question by using the word who well
then how did it get created well um by a very slow process well how did it start nobody knows how it got started we know The kind of event but it must have been we know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life what was there it was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule right out of that album I've told you we don't know so you have no idea how it started no no not evolution is a fact it's documented by science we're out of that up I told you
we don't believe these things because they're fats proved by evidence So you have no idea how it started no no no as anything else what do you think is the possibility that there that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution it could come about in the following way it could be that at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form Of life that they seeded onto
perhaps this this planet now that is a possibility at under intriguing music and I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the at the detail details of biochemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer wait a second Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit and that designer could well be higher intelligence from Elsewhere in the universe but that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process it couldn't have just jumped into existence
spontaneously that's the point so professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design just certain types of designers such as God many many people are extremely illogical I'm skeptical of the claim [Music] they're skeptical skeptical skeptical skeptical skeptical of claims for the abilities or the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity complexity of the complexity of the complexity [Music] careful examination and nation examination the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged [Music] So we have a crisis in cosmology and apparently a crisis in biology going on at the same time you know
if biological evolution here requires the intervention of intelligence who created those other beings you see all they're doing is pushing the problem further out you know eventually you got to get to a first cause and ideally you really gotta get to how does the first self-replicating cell manifest itself out of nonliving material right I mean you gotta get you You can't just go to chimps you gotta go further back than that right well I mean therefore they're forced to go on faith well that's a crazy religious word right because they have no evidence for what
they're talking about but yet it over and over and over again we're seeing stuff like this aren't we article after article talking about other earth-like planets out there that you know there could be a billion earth in our galaxy alone 40 billion 8.8 billion oh and Incidentally they're finding all these earths by looking through telescopes millions of light-years away or even thousands of light-years away both are absurd you know how far light your is yeah it's nearly six trillion miles they're telling us thick there they're spotting black holes 55 million light years away if they
got telescopes that powerful turn the telescope on the moon I want to count the rivets on the buggy or shut up you're full of crap There's no way you're looking that far out there but they're always pumping it in your head there's other Earth's like out there because they have to they have to prop up their theory you know that they're ancient aliens out there over and over and over again well this next video shows how life forming from nonliving matter is simply impossible whether we're talking about here on earth or elsewhere in the cosmos
it is belief in the absence of evidence now I Don't propose to tell anybody what to believe but for me believing when there's no compelling evidence is a mistake the idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence when I talk to the public about astronomy and this question of life elsewhere in the universe the most commonly held view point I encounter is surely it's impossible that we could be alone in the universe after all how could I be Amongst this unimaginable number of opportunities for life to get going it only happened once only
here and this is a viewpoint held by many scientists and Talking Heads in popular media - absolutely there is life elsewhere and almost certainly intelligent life it has to be the odds are just overwhelming there's 200 billion stars in this galaxy well now it looks like every star has about ten planets so it's almost certainly intelligent life assume it's The most frequently asked questions based solely on statistical grounds comes with a fatal flaw and that is that it is possible that the probability of life starting from scratch which we call abiogenesis is a number which
is so small that it greatly outweighs the number of opportunities the number of worlds out there in the universe for life to get going for example if the probability of life beginning is one in septillion say then the case for a Crowded universe evaporates what is the probability of abiogenesis at a basic level we certainly know that no lab experiment here on earth has ever succeeded in creating what we would call life from chemical broths with conditions similar to that of the earlier this was first famously attempted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952
at the University of Chicago and what is now often considered the classic abiogenesis experiment they Exposed a beaker of water Thayne ammonia and hydrogen - gentle heating and electrical sparks which emulated lightning now many organic molecules were produced in this experiment including 20 amino acids but neither in that experiment nor in any experiment since have we observed the spontaneous production of complex proteins no DNA no indeed something crawling out of the test tube language is recognizable even if you Can't read it take Morse code it has three basic parts dots dashes and spaces these three
simple parts are combined to represent letters there are 26 letters in the English language which are combined to form over 400,000 words those words can of course be combined into an infinite number of sequences or sentences there is evidence that DNA represents a language for basic units called nucleotides combined into a code for 20 Amino acids from those few amino acids the body forms more than 100,000 proteins even if you can't read DNA it still has all the hallmarks of language a language that biologists are just now beginning to crack every tiny cell in our
body is packed with three feet of DNA three billion nucleotides the similarity between DNA and human language is uncanny in addition to codes both use similar techniques to pack access rearrange copy and translate Information DNA seems to represent a language the language of life an unseen author the creator of heaven and earth has left a testimony of his existence in the DNA of every living thing for those who believe in evolution they believe that matter gave rise to life you could understand matter had to give rise to zillions and zillions and zillions and zillions of
bits of information and over millions of years information keeps coming from matter new Information to form all the different kinds of animals and plants zillions of bits of information you know what's interesting we've never seen matter produce one bit of brand new information that never previously existed not even one bit when one looks at a typical textbook one will see some prehistoric pond and molecules and those molecules coming together and forming a cell and those cells coming together and some slithering creature coming out of this Pond that is fallacious there is no truth in that
this is a cell what is the origin of life how do you get a cell like this what is the origin of something like this this is an amazing machine of cell is an amazing machine it's not just a blob of protoplasm every day it gets harder to have the origin of life to come up with a scenario because the origin of life becomes more and more complex every day a cell is a factory it has the lipid bilayer which is extremely Selective to let certain things in and not other things it has all of
this substructure in here these little areas where energy is made in here it has these microtubules which can form so you can move matter from point A to point B if you go to a factory what you see is you see these overhead hanging machines that are moving materials from point A to point B in in in in in these systems and the way they do this is they build these racks but you same things happens In a cell you get these microtubules to move material from point A to point B and then as soon
as the material is done moving the microtubule breaks down and then assemble some other place you say well why doesn't leave it there because then the cell would become too rigid so just rebuilds it it's just amazing Factory what's happening in a Cell this is what we have to make if we want to have origin of life you got to start here you don't start here you start with A single cell just build a single cell that's what we have to do in origin of life no has ever done this if you've been taught that
simple forms of life have been made that is a lie that you are believing somebody told you a lie that has never been done organisms care about life molecules don't care chemistry on the contrary is utterly indifferent to life without a Biologically derived entity acting upon them molecules have never been shown to evolve toward life never molecules don't care about life they don't know anything about moving toward life they have no brain organisms want to move toward life and keep life going molecules don't care about life nobody has ever seen molecules assembled toward life never
doesn't happen without a biological entity working on them I asked all my colleagues can you show me an example of This of molecules moving toward order moving toward an ordered system where you have a non regular assembly regular assemblies like a AAA or a bab that you can get pure thermodynamic assembly but non order assembly is a non regular pattern that's what you have in DNA we know from computer science you have to have non regular patterns in order to have complexity for living systems and I asked my colleagues do you have any example of
molecules without a Biological entity acting upon them moving in in in to to give an ordered assembly that is a non regular pattern and they sent me papers where chemists have taken molecules and assembled them in that way is it non biological entity you can't have a human doing this molecules don't move toward life well even if you want to have molecules move toward life and you have human beings working upon them can the human beings do it and the answer's no so almost Every chemical synthesis experiment an origin of life research can be summed
up by protocol analogous to this you they purchase chemicals generally in high purity from a chemical company all right so that's what they do they first purchase the chemicals they mix those chemicals together in water and high concentrations in a specific order under some set of carefully devised conditions in the modern lab then they can obtain a mixture of compounds that have a Resemblance to one or more or of the basic four classes of chemicals needed for life so what you need for life is you need carbohydrates nucleic acids amino acids and lipids that's what
we know all life we know composes those four building blocks so they try to make those four building blocks then they publish a paper making bold assertions about origin of life from these functionalist crude mixtures of stereochemically scrambled Intermediates much like Miller did in 1952 nothing has changed in 66 years nothing nothing's changed exactly where we were in 1952 is exactly where we have remained think about what's been done in science in the past sixty years nothing has changed an origin of life studies in 66 years that's important to realize then you engage with the
ever ever gullible press to dial up the knob of unjustified extrapolations watch the mesmerized lay flirt person exclaim you See scientists understand how life formed then you encourage a generation of science textbook writers to make colorful deceptive cartoons of raw chemicals assembling from cells which then emerge as slithering creatures from a pre-start pond that is exactly what it's done every one of their experiments so what do I say when someone asks me do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe Carl Sagan once famously wrote that faith is belief in the Absence of evidence
and honestly any scientist who says there has to be life out there is putting forward a position of faith not one supported by observational evidence and statistical reasoning so where are we putting our faith ultimately when it comes to belief here are our choices in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and he made us in his own image or in the beginning nothing farted out the heavens in the earth that we got here From goo to you by way the zoo or nothing farted out the heavens in the earth and et ceded
the goo to make you basically these are our choices guys when you perceive from a false premise your conclusions are gonna be sheer madness this is why we have so many crisis scenarios going on in so-called modern science as it brings me to my last slide here which one is it then we have all our government-funded textbooks telling us we live And oblate spheroid we have this guy saying no you live on a pair it's a pair of shape you have NASA and other government organizations like NASA showing us perfectly spherical worlds and then you
have the Bible saying nope you live in a snow globe so which one is it I say look as for me and my house let God be true and every man a liar you can laugh at me you can mock me for saying that but if you believe you're an evolved ape that got here from GU to my Way of the zoo out of a rock that was spit out of us a exploding dot you don't have the intellectual high ground in this discussion it's hard to break it to and when it comes to evidence
you know I my whole life experience points to the truth of the Scriptures I've had no reason to doubt it and then when you start seeing other evidences like this it just confirms all the more that I'm going to trust it for cosmology as well thank you [Applause]
