And so, Professor Dave is going to take you along the thin areas of the cheese, and while doing so, he’s going to do the following. He’s going to erect strawman arguments against creationists. We’ll see that a lot in his videos.
You’ll soon see many of examples of claims that I’ve never once heard any creationists ever.
In the country. This is Real Science Radio. I’m Fred Williams.
And I’m Doug McBurney, Bible student, science geek, amateur comedian Fred. It is great to be back with you talking about real science on Friday.
So today we’re going to dive into some recent videos that allegedly debunk creation, and they were put out by a popular YouTuber who goes by the moniker Professor Dave. He currently has a video series that will culminate in five parts, and they’re titled The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists. Now Doug, because of the popularity of his YouTube channel, he has like over 3 million subscribers.
He has elicited responses from prominent creation and intelligent design scientists including several at the Discovery Institute and also Dr. James Tour, who we interviewed early this year. So please be sure to leave any comments or questions you have in the comment section of our videos that we’re going to do to challenge him on his alleged debunking. And if you haven’t already, please be sure to hit the subscribe button and the like button.
It helps us out with the YouTube algorithms, of course. So, Doug, before we get started, can you tell us a little bit about this Professor Dave?
Well, I can only tell you what I’ve read. I must confess I’ve only imbibed very little of his video material. But it is only fair that our audience know his actual background.
His real name is David James Farina. And even though he is named after both an Apostle of jesus Christ and the King of Israel, he calls himself an atheist. According to the Discovery Institute, David James is neither a Professor nor a PhD, but just a failed ex-teacher who tried unsuccessfully to get a master’s degree in chemistry.
And Fred, while his academic failures don’t, I mean, that doesn’t necessarily disqualify him from speaking on science. He did have to settle for a master of arts in science education, which I would think would preclude a decent person from using the moniker Professor. But his arts degree has helped him in delivering what I’m told are decent quality videos, especially in areas outside of chemistry and evolution.
I hear some of them are pretty good, but after suffering through his debate with James Tour, all the way through from James Tour’s gentlemanly like introduction and his gentlemanly like postscript, right on through to David James’ profanity at the end. After suffering through that, and then I did hear him embarrass himself discussing plasma astronomy. And I’ve just not watched any of his other stuff.
And I’m only condescending to it now, Fred, at the behest of our listeners. They reminded us that even a pretender like Dave should hear the truth in hopes that even a guy like him might eventually believe the gospel and avoid an eternity of conscious torment. An eternity of conscious torment, which is where he’s headed, Fred.
And he likely knows that he’s going straight to hell, Fred, because he’s generally vulgar and profane and just a really nasty person, especially to people with opposing views. I mentioned the profanity with Dr. Tour, but I mean, this guy is big on personal attacks, hyperbolic rhetoric, he’s also a communist, an anti-Semite, and I’m not calling him names, Fred. Check out his listing at Rational Wiki and just follow the links and you’ll see.
But one thing that did surprise me, Fred, he’s not gay.
Yeah, good point. So you know, Doug, for me, it was really, it’s real hard to take the guy seriously. But you know, again, because he’s got so many, he’s built up such a big YouTube following, he’s got over 3 million subscribers, and he actually disseminates, based on the videos I watched that he’s put out, he does disseminate much of what secular evolutionists, scientists believe.
So based on, you know, feedback we got from our listeners and requests from our listening audience and viewing audience on YouTube, we thought, okay, this is worth dealing with some of these videos that he claims are definitive guides to debunking creationists. So we’re going to go through each of his videos as we have time, and we’re going to start with his first one, which is on cosmology and planetary science. So, you know, Doug, while this guy isn’t a nice guy we’re dealing with, he doesn’t have a lot of class.
He’s just, he’s not a guy of high character. You hate having to say that about someone, but again, all you have to do is watch his debates with people who oppose him. So anyways, I’m going to start with a graphic that he shows on the different types of creation science, and I’m going to read this for our listening audience.
And so he’s got a list from one to eight, and he starts with what he calls the most unscientific, and then it goes down to the least unscientific. So he starts with flat earth geocentrism. So right there, he’s putting in something that, you know, Doug, we fight against the flat earth idea, and unfortunately, there’s plenty of Christians who have fallen for that.
There’s both Christians and evolutionists, in fact. I know for many years, the president of the flat earth society is an evolutionist. So you get these fringe groups on both the right and the left, and some of these fringe on the right are our friends.
But we just, you know, out of love, we kind of, we have to tell them what we believe is true, and, you know, we believe the, it’s overwhelming that there’s zero probability that the earth is flat. So then right after that, he lists young earth creationism. So he puts it right next to flat earth as the most unscientific.
And then he goes number three, gap creationism, and then day age creationism, and then progressive creationism, which is the Hugh Ross crowd. And then after that, he puts intelligent design, and he’s going up in order of more scientific. He calls it least unscientific, and then theistic evolution, and then finally deistic evolution.
So, Fred, he lists deistic evolution and theistic evolution as more scientific than intelligent design?
Yeah, he does.
Huh, I wonder what that’s all about, because theistic evolution and deistic evolution, by definition, they would involve a supernatural creator.
Yeah, so it’s one step close to being an atheist, but they appeal to the secular science. They buy in with almost all of the secular science.
Well, that just strikes me as incongruous that he would not list intelligent design, which does not… Well, I guess this intelligent design does require a creator, although it could be aliens. So anyway, I think maybe seven and eight, theistic and deistic evolution, maybe that’s some kind of backhanded appeal to religious people.
Anyway, it’s just that was kind of weird.
Yeah. And I would say we should change this chart to most secular, unscientific and least secular, unscientific. Get the word secular in there, because that’s his worldview.
Yeah. So we’re now showing a chart of what we believe is the types of creation science, and we believe this is the accurate representation of what he should show. And so the most scientific we’ve got listed is one A, Young Earth Creation, and then one B, I put Intelligent Design.
You know, and that’s provided that they don’t delve into geology and go too far with any lip service towards common descent. You know, once they do that, we’re good, because, you know, a lot of these guys in the ID movement are dear friends of real science radio. And we’ve interviewed some of their scientists.
They do great work. So those are the most scientific. And then after that is Gap Creationism.
Now we’re heading down towards least scientific. After that is Progressive Creationism, and that’s the Hugh Ross thing. The days are millions of years.
And the day age creation where each day is millions of years, and then they believe in some form of evolution. And then of course, theistic evolution is a complete capitulation to the secular world, secular evolutionists. And they basically just say, there is a God, but everything else is true about evolution, big bang, and all that stuff.
Tim Bates Right, which is refuted by a number of Scriptures. I know we don’t have time to list the Bible verses, but it’s not only unscientific, more offensive to me is it’s unbiblical.
Yeah, exactly. So Doug, before we play clips from Professor Dave’s videos, I wanted our audience to be on the lookout for a pattern that will become very obvious with Professor Dave. I’ve already watched his videos that we’re going to cover, you know, completely through.
And what the audience will find is that he skirts around the evidence that outright falsifies his claims. He just kind of steers around it. He presents evolution as if the evidence is beyond overwhelming using hyperbole such as highly successful model, undeniable evidence, profound understanding, mountains of empirical evidence, high degrees of precision.
And so like every evolutionist I’ve ever debated through the years, they’ll always admit to some problems, Doug, like, well, you know, science advances and, you know, we have, we correct things as we go because we’re so honorable this and that. So while that’s partly true, that’s all fine and good. The problem here, Doug, is science actually falsifies their position.
So Professor Dave, he’ll present evolution like this piece of Swiss cheese I’m showing right now in the video. It’s this clump of Swiss cheese. It has a couple of divots in it, but no holes in it.
It’s like a really healthy looking piece of Swiss cheese.
Yeah.
But in reality, Doug, this is what evolution really looks like. And now I’m showing, you know, Swiss cheese with a lot of holes that you can see, right, Doug?
It’s a holy cheese right there. Yeah.
Yep.
So for our radio audience, it’s holy cheese.
Yeah. So now I want to show a little animation. I’m going to kick that off right now.
And so Professor Dave is going to take you along the thin areas of the cheese. And while doing so, he’s going to do the following. He’s going to erect straw man arguments against creationists.
We’ll see that a lot in his videos. You’ll soon see many of examples of claims that I’ve never once heard any creationists ever make Doug ever. Now maybe there’s the guy who isn’t familiar with creation, but he’s a Bible believer and he’s just never looked at the science.
And you know, yeah, you get some comments like that. But in the creation community, you’re talking answers in Genesis, ICR, Creation Research Society, and just people who have a general understanding of creation. I’ve never heard them make any of these arguments that he levels against us.
Second, many of the creationist talking points he mentions are comments made by secular scientists, not necessarily us. He’ll also use the hyperbole that we mentioned earlier as a marketing ploy, saying, again, things like highly successful model, undeniable evidence, profound understanding, mountains of empirical evidence, high degrees of precision. He’ll also use elaborate storytelling on his journey through journeying around this cheese with holes in it.
And he’ll try to sell pseudo-scientific ideas around things like the Big Bang, population genetics, gradual change in the fossil record, etc. So Doug, here’s the biggest one of all, and he’ll largely avoid this, and that’s those adjacent elephants in the room. It’s those big holes in the Swiss cheese.
And it’s evidence that outright falsifies the theory, so he doesn’t want his audience to know about him. So I’m hoping that his audience that tunes in to watch this show will have at least somewhat of an open mind and ask themselves, are they being brainwashed by the pseudoscience that Professor Dave is pushing? So let’s let the audience decide, Doug.
And so I want to start our first clip from Professor Dave’s part one of his video that he claims debunks creationist talking points.
Okay, Fred, let it roll.
Many creationists deny Big Bang cosmology because they do not understand it and deliberately misrepresent it. Young Earth creationists in particular tend to picture a Kablui graphic with fully formed planets and comets tumbling out, which indeed would be preposterous.
preposterous, he says. preposterous. That’s obvious straw man, Fred.
I’ve never met a creationist who claims that’s what the secular Big Bang teaches. It’s a caricature of creationism. Now, we do believe that God created everything in six days, but he’s conflating that into us somehow misrepresenting what they believe about the Big Bang.
It’s just completely disingenuous.
Yep, that’s right, Doug. He then goes into storytelling about how elements condensed into clouds to form stars and all that fantasy land stuff, and it eventually leads to all the heavy elements. I’m going to skip that part and just let you, if the audience wants to go watch that, they’ll see what I mean.
So I want to get to the next straw man that he erects against creationists, so let’s roll the tape on that one.
Their arguments against Big Bang cosmology are typically ridiculous. They will say that if everything emerged from a big explosion, everything should be moving in the same direction outwards from the explosion, so how are certain things moving towards each other, like specific stars and galaxies? How is it that venus exhibits retrograde rotation, spinning the opposite direction of all the other planets?
One need only specify that, apart from the Big Bang not being an explosion, our system formed 10 billion years after the Big Bang due to totally unrelated processes, and that in general, stars didn’t form for about 200 million years.
Doug, I’m not aware of any creationist saying that venus’ retrograde orbit, you know, where it rotates the opposite direction of the other planets, is a problem because of an explosion, a Big Bang. That’s not what we claim. No, it instead comes from their very own nebular hypothesis for the origin of our solar system that Jonathan Sarfati for Creation Ministries International, tongue-in-cheek, calls it the nebulous hypothesis.
Yeah.
So, you know, this low-grade hypothesis posits a nebula spiraling inwards, which due to the conservation of angular momentum should result in all the planets that are formed out of this fantasy to rotate in the same direction. It’s called prograde. But venus rotates in the opposite direction.
And evolutionists even admit that this is a problem. And so they think venus originally was prograde. And then something knocked it off course.
So they concoct stories to try to get it to spin backwards. So he erected a total straw man argument. It’s claims that they make, not us.
And we just happen to point out, yeah, why is venus spinning backwards? God’s got a sense of humor. And then they have to try to explain it.
And then they come up with just those stories to try to get around it.
And then next, Fred, David James makes a rhetorical claim that I found amazing. And it speaks to your quip that the left exists in a seemingly constant state of hypocrisy.
Astronomy is perhaps the most observational branch of science, as we can simply look through telescopes and see what’s going on in the universe. We can see protoplanetary disks. We can observe star formation in various stages within nebulae.
We have a profound understanding of stellar dynamics and where the elements come from. We use spectroscopy to analyze the composition of stars, and to see which molecules are capable of forming in the vacuum of space. Encourage them to visit their local observatory and make their own observations, and to ask questions that the employees will be thrilled to answer.
Most will refuse, which says a lot about the willful nature of their ignorance, which you may point out to them.
So Doug, I’m pretty sure that it’s the secular astronomers. They’re the ones who are not going to want us to ask the tough questions, because the first thing we point out is that huge elephant in the room, that big hole in the Swiss cheese he doesn’t want his audience to know about, and that’s the fact that the James Webb Telescope is finding these fully formed galaxies where they aren’t supposed to be, way back early towards the Big Bang. And here’s a quote from a secular astronomer.
Now this comes from an article the headline reads, Web spots super old massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist. So this is what Erica Nelson said. She’s an assistant professor of astrophysics at the University of Colorado Boulder.
She says, it’s bananas. Doug, it’s bananas. You just don’t expect the early universe to be able to organize itself that quickly.
These galaxies should not have had time to form. Now, why isn’t Professor Dave talking about all the discoveries of the James Webb and the Hubble Telescope? We already knew some of this before.
The James Webb just went on to confirm a lot of this stuff.
And you don’t need a telescope to see those elephants because they’re right there. And David James must have never heard Bob Enyart’s interview with Christian creationist Jim Burr, right? Recognized throughout the world for his achievements in actually designing and manufacturing telescopes.
Christians aren’t afraid of telescopes. We like telescopes just fine. That’s a pretty big hole in their theory.
The James Webb Telescope and all the discoveries, yeah, you hear crickets on that. And we’ve added that to our list, by the way, of shocked evolutionists. Everyone who looks through that James Webb Telescope, if they’re an evolutionist, they’re shocked.
And, all right, so let’s roll the next clip where if I’m not mistaken, David James is going to elucidate the fine-tuning of the universe.
More intelligent creationists will bring up what is called the fine-tuning argument. It applies to the physical parameters of the universe as understood by science, so it does not support Young Earth creationism, but could be seen as supporting deistic evolution, at least at face value. The universe has a number of physical constants, or quantitative values pertaining to fundamental characteristics that one might propose could potentially have had totally different values.
These would include the fundamental unit of electric charge found on the electron, the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, the magnitude of the strong nuclear force, the gravitational constant we refer to as big G, the cosmological constant that determines the rate of the universe’s expansion, and several others. It is often said by creationists that if any of these parameters differed from their current values by even a few percent, that life would be impossible, and in some cases, star formation or even atom formation would be impossible.
Well, I have news for Professor Dave. See this book I’m holding right here, Doug? It’s called Rare Earth, and it’s co-authored by Dr. Donald Brownlee.
He’s a professor of astronomy at Washington University. He’s the same Brownlee, Dr. Brownlee, that our very own Kevin Lee has interacted with regarding the overwhelming evidence that asteroids are floating rock piles that originated from Earth, from the global flood. The evidence continues to pile in.
So the arguments of fine tuning are being made from these two secular evolutionists. So these aren’t creationist talking points, Professor Dave. These two guys conclude that because of the fine tuning, they quote, even simple animal life is most likely extremely rare in the entire universe.
And again, it’s because of all the fine tuning things that we see in the universe that they document in this book. So, so much for a creationist talking point.
Uh-huh. And then David James goes on to propose explanations, including the wacky, unprovable multiverse fantasy. But to his credit, he does at least admit that that’s a fairly weak argument.
He then muses that it could be intelligent life putting us in a simulation and emphasizes, of course, that it’s not a god or a deity or anything like that. And wasn’t David James accusing creationists of incredulity earlier? Didn’t I hear that?
Incredulity? What? So anyway, so far his debunking, the cupboard is bare, as far as I can tell, so far, Fred.
Yeah, good point, Doug. So let’s continue to roll the tape, and now this next thing is on the Hubble constant.
So we can continue with creationist talking points that specifically contradict science. Going back to specific aspects of Big Bang cosmology, some creationists will learn basic astrophysics terminology in an effort to pretend they can refute scientific methods for determining the age of the universe. It should be made clear that the accepted value of 13.787 billion years plus or minus 200 million years is supported by a mountain of empirical evidence from multiple lines of inquiry.
First, this can be derived from measuring the expansion of the universe through the red shifting of galaxies as a function of distance. Sources of visible light that are moving towards an observer are blue shifted, meaning the waves get bunched up, while those moving away from an observer are red shifted, meaning the waves get stretched out. just like how an ambulance will have the sound waves from its siren pitched up while approaching you and then pitched down once they pass you.
The farther away the galaxy is, the greater the red shift, which tells us how much the universe has expanded since that light was emitted, and this data can be plotted to get something called the Hubble Constant. The reciprocal of the Hubble Constant will give us an estimation for the age of the universe.
Fred, all of that scientific nomenclature, I just don’t know what to do as a creationist. I wish I would have learned more of it so I could pretend I understand more of it.
Yeah. So, what’s the hole in the cheese, Doug, he’s leaving out in this latest clip?
Well, he’s about five years behind the times. And by the way, when did it become 13.787? Did that just happen in the last 0.787 minutes?
I thought it was 13.452. Now it’s 13.787. Well, that’s news to me.
But anyway, Professor Dave is about 5.725 years behind because NASA reported back in 2019 that the Hubble constant has been contradicted by findings, ironically, by the Hubble Telescope.
Which is pretty cool.
I mean, you can’t write that, right? You couldn’t write that in a screenplay. Fred, we’ll link to this article titled Mystery of the Universe’s Expansion Rate Widenes with New Hubble Data.
The author bemuses that new theories may be needed to explain the forces that have shaped the cosmos there. David James.
Well, Doug, not only that, you mentioned the age of the universe and they always try to give it this exact number, 13.5689235, because we’re so smart, we got it really narrowed down. Well, you know, there’s this noble winning astrophysicist, he now claims that the age of the universe is off by about a billion.
A billion?
Yeah, a billion. I wonder if he really means 989.5672593.
You’re off by that much.
plus or minus 200 million. plus or minus 200 million. I heard David James stick that one in.
It’s 13.787 billion, plus or minus 200 billion, which means you really don’t need to say the 787. But he’s just, you know, Fred, he talks about creationist trying to learn the vernacular so we can pretend, but he’s just regurgitating vernacular that he’s imbibed and he’s really pretending.
Yeah, yeah. So Doug, we’ve got an extensive list of evidence against the Big Bang, and you can go to rsr.org/bigbang. You know, the late great Bob Enyart did a great job of putting all these lists together.
We’re trying to add to them as we can. And you can buy our fantastic video on evidences against the Big Bang. It’s in my top two of all the videos that we provide through our store.
And that’s at rsr.org/store. So please consider getting that if you haven’t, it supports our radio and YouTube ministry. And as we try to reach as many people as we can.
And that video has evidence. It’s just undeniable. It’s crystal clear.
The Big Bang is just not true. There’s way too many things that… It’s not just evidence against the Big Bang, Doug.
There’s things that just outright falsify it. So please get that video. And by the way, again, we’ll remind you, like this video that you’re watching on YouTube, if you’re one of our YouTube video watchers.
And also leave comments in the section. We’ll try to respond to them. If you have questions, if you feel like there’s things we should have talked about, if you think we made a mistake on anything, please let us know.
And we will be monitoring the comments and we’ll respond to them as we can.
Absolutely. And only like the show if you actually like it. If you don’t like it, and don’t like it.
Do they have a don’t like button?
Go for it.
Do they have a I don’t like this button? They do.
They have an unlike.
You can click that one too. And then be sure to leave a comment though. because we want to know.
So Fred, I’m still waiting for David James to come out with an actual creationist talking point that he’s claiming to refute. I mean, he’s basically listed a tired and already refuted bunch of Big Bang arguments. And so let’s roll and here is the next one.
Then there is the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the universe, which is about 3 to 1. That there is so much helium indicates that the universe was once hot enough to fuse protons and neutrons, which is explained by the nucleosynthesis aspect of the Big Bang model. No other model can account for this observation in general, and they certainly cannot account for this precise ratio that is specifically predicted by the duration of the nucleosynthesis epoch as demanded by the model.
So this is a classic case of cherry-picking data and molding it to fit the alleged prediction. So we’ll find out that later in the video this professor, David James…
David James is what his mom calls him when she’s mad at him. That’s a state of mind that he needs to be in right now. It’s like he’s been busted by his mom.
I like it. So we’ll find later in the video that David James claims that we cherry-picked the data. That’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
You know, but once again, we don’t need creationist talking points to refute this. We can use evolutionists’ own words. And you can get this at our rsr.org/bigbang or evidence against the big bang.
So a paper in Nature magazine describes the particulars of this prediction as, quote, assumed ad hoc to obtain the required or predicted abundances. And then there’s a thing in physics essays that, quote, the study of historical data shows that over the years, predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a big bang universe have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as observed in the real universe. So again, David James, these are not creationist talking points.
Are you debunking your own people on your own side? I don’t think so. So are you gonna say that they’re wrong?
What’s your position here?
Yeah. Wait, Fred, we can’t roll the next video. Everyone’s on the edge of their seat waiting for the interesting fact of the week.
We can’t forget that.
Good point, Doug. Okay, so we’re gonna do the interesting fact of the week. And after we do that, we’re gonna talk about the next clip in this guy’s video, which is Cosmic Background Radiation.
Okay. So Doug, here is the interesting fact of the week. What is the most abundant element in the universe?
Cockroaches. No, no, wait.
That could be, yeah, the universe of Florida.
No, I think it’s, I think it’s hydrogen.
See, there I go again, Doug. I hit the wrong button.
That’s because you always assume that I’m wrong.
All right, Doug, congratulations.
Anyway, Fred, going with your gut, going with your gut is generally correct with me, so.
Good one. Okay, so hydrogen, you are correct.
Awesome. Okay. Hey, and weren’t we just talking about the ratio of helium to hydrogen, right?
And David James says, no other model can explain da da da da da. How can you say that? How can you say that no other model can explain as if you’ve reviewed every model and every possible model that could, that’s just that that’s the kind of hyperbole that you warn people about in the beginning.
Exactly. Okay. So let’s roll the tape now on what he says about cosmic background radiation.
Finally, there is the cosmic microwave background radiation, something which was specifically predicted by Big Bang cosmology, and then subsequently observed. This is a perfect blackbody spectrum permeating the cosmos, which is a remnant of the recombination epoch, when electrons first coupled with atomic nuclei and relaxed to the ground state, emitting photons and causing the universe to become transparent for the first time. This occurred 380,000 years after the initial singularity, and since has been stretched out by the expansion of the universe to measure 2.7 kelvin with extreme isotropy, meaning the same in every direction.
Okay, first of all, the CMB prediction is an example of historical revisionism. But you know what, Fred, we could give that one to him, right? We could give that one to the Big Bang evolutionist side that David James represents, and we can talk about the scores of predictions the Big Bang has failed on.
Okay, just to name a few, Fred. An entire universe of missing anti-matter. Where is that, David James?
And then, homogeneity and isotropy. The contradictions to the Big Bang’s foundational predictions of homogeneity and isotropy, including the enormous cold spot, quantized red shifts, the axis of evil. You can learn more about this.
just go to rsr.org/bigbangprediction.
Yes. And Doug, this gets to another huge elephant in the room. A big hole in the cheese that he’s steering around, and he’s not telling his listeners about it.
It’s one of, I’ve always really enjoyed this argument. At the end of the clip, he said that the CMB shows extreme isotropy. Yeah.
So, extreme, Doug. So, he’s wrong yet again. David James, you’re wrong again.
And that’s because of what secular astronomers have coined, and you mentioned it here recently, Doug. You said the axis of evil. They call it evil because it totally uphins their entire Big Bang cosmology model.
So, and why call anything evil if it’s science? I mean, obviously, that’s not a scientific statement. We’ve said many times they like to use words that aren’t scientific because they’re just, you know, they’re just so disappointed that their atheistic worldview doesn’t work.
It’s bananas.
It’s bananas, it’s horrendous, all these different things. So this whole axis of evil, it outright falsifies their claim. And this is where the Planck satellite, it showed a universe with a slightly warmer hemisphere below Earth’s orbit.
So that is the cosmic background radiation should be randomly distributed. It should be extreme isotropy, as he claims. But Planck revealed that one half of the universe has bigger CMV variations than the other.
And that variation, Doug, extends right through the Earth’s axis. So imagine a globe cut in two of the universe, and right through the center happens to sit Earth’s axis, where these differences in temperature occur.
Yeah, that’s right. And by the way, that reminds me, Fred, at the very beginning when you showed David James chart, he listed flat Earth with geocentrism. He mushed those together as if, but those don’t necessarily have to be mushed together.
So the idea that the Earth could be either at the center of the universe or very close to the center of the universe has nothing to do with flat Earth, okay? I almost missed that. I wanted to point that out.
And then to this issue of the axis of evil, what’s funny is a report that happened before Planck, because they were, remember, they were hoping that it would rescue them and show that it was just noise in the data. They said the European Space Agencies recently launched the Planck Telescope and that might settle the issue when it makes the most sensitive maps yet of the CMB. Until then, the axis of evil continues to terrorize us.
I’ll link to the article, Fred, in the summary. Now, after Planck confirmed the axis of evil, that’s right, the axis of evil was confirmed by Planck, we have then this quote, the fact that Planck has made such a significant detection of these anomalies erases any doubts about their reality. It can no longer be said they are artifacts of the measurements, they are real, and we have to look for a credible explanation.
Who’s the we? It’s not Young Earth Creationists, it’s Paolo Natoli of the European Space Agency back in 2013.
So Doug, we’re halfway through his part one, and now we’re finally going to get to a Creationist talking point, where something we actually say, but Doug, I think we have to save that for our next show. I think we’re running out of time.
Wow, we can’t even get to one actual Christian Creationist talking point.
Well we’re going to get to it, but it will have to be next week. So people will have to watch next week’s show or listen to us on the radio. And David James finally gets to something that, yes, we actually said, and we’ll see if he debunked it.
Okay, well I think that’s a classic tease, Fred. So you got a future in the radio business. That’s perfect.
You got a future as a YouTuber, Fred. Hey, I’ll love getting back together with you next Friday, Fred. I look forward to it.
Okay, let’s do it. So for Doug McBurney, I’m Fred Williams of Real Science Radio. May God bless you.
