Actually from the chapters that I can view for free he does not actually do this, he mostly makes claims that say that the current hypothesis for the formation of the solar system is wrong not claims that would put well defined limits on age of the solar system. At best I recall him saying Io could be at most millions of years old otherwise it would have cooled down, though he never cites his calculations for this and as I have pointed out he ignored obvious extra sources of heat.First of all he actually mainly quote mines statements saying variations of "we don't understand how this process occurred" he rarely cites the factual data he sprouts.I have watched it, or at least the chapters I can see for free on the website. Based on those chapters I make my criticism and based on those chapters there is no way I would pay money to see the rest.Because such massive changes in the speed of light would leave changes in our observations of objects unless he created the light "in transit already" and thus we are seeing false history.No, I'd have thought he'd put the speed of light at an appropriate amount to see everything and then not mess with it in such a way that it looks like it is and always has been constant. Why not make light instantaneous?
Furthermore what reason would anyone have other than faith to conclude that God did such a thing as mess with the speed of light?
Tyrathca,
Why are you bashing a video you haven't even seen? It isn't rhetorical, I really want to know WHY you would do that? You seem smart enough to know how ignorance disqualifies one from a credible opinion, yet you seem to think your two viewings gives you enough to draw a conclusion on the other one hour and ten minutes of the video.
I am not telling you to go and buy a copy... I would recommend it to anyone but that isn't the point HERE... if you don't think you'd like his perspective, then fine, don't get it... but don't make excuses or draw silly conclusions, and don't complain because a video on the solar system doesn't address issues concerning the universe. It is meaningless anyway, why would anyone believe your opinion about something when you never watched it?
It's like saying, "E.T.was a horrible movie," when you only saw the previews.
Your answer about star light isn't thought through. God doesn't need to create false history to get a stream of light from a star to here... he could do such a thing miraculously for one day, hour, nano second if he willed... God can overcome this through some method that is beyond our understanding.
You are not God and not aware of the full ability of physics. If there is a "natural" answer, there may be many ways to get star light here besides having to "traverse" its way.
For example:
If I were to tell you sound waves (that travel 350
meters per second) can make it to the moon in seconds, what would you say?
Impossible? Would you say I created false history? Or would you possibly conclude that there is a method to get sound waves to the moon in seconds?
If you picked C, then maybe you know something about radio... it can carry sound thousands of times faster than it could travel on its own. It takes sound waves, duplicates them into pulses of light, sends them everywhere until a receiver is able to translate it back into sound on the other end. It allows sound information to travel at the speed of light!
I know it isn't a perfect explanation (hey, maybe it's
teleported 
). But it shows how (with a little know how) something very slow can be moved very quickly without false history being involved... If we can do this with sound waves, how much more could a creator God do it with light?
Something to think about (I hope)
