Angular momentum can still be conserved in the big bang, this point made by him makes mention of a rotating singularity that consitutes the earliest moment of the planck epoch (
Planck epoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
By extrapolating from Hawkings & Susskind's assessments of quantum singularity properties, given that the universe at 0-time was a proper quantum singularity (what allows this to be constituted as a singularity is in fact the same properties we assign a black hole are accounted for in the properties of the early universe) there are two theories that can be worked from this.
(
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The first is that there is no frame of reference, so conservation of angular moment isn't possible because it simply cannot be applied. The second and equally plasuable explaination is that the early universe was rotating from 0-time during the planck epoch which is a very clear possibility of a singularity, especially one like this. The second is more consistent with a multiverse theory of reality, given that the singularity formed was an event in a "parent" universe.
Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.
My assessment of his knowledge of gravity is that he lacks the basic understanding to make assertions about the coelescing of the early hydrogen gas in the universe under gravitational influences in sufficient quantuties to ignite stars. He argues that this is unlikely but we know today that gravity has no limits on it's capability to interact from a long distance. We are being affected by gravity from other galaxies and just because it is not noticable to us personally it's quite observable. A quick glance at the galactic clusters that permiate our universe leave us with little option but to accept this simple notion.
For those who are mathematically inclined I am including the equations that will allow you to calculate the gravitationally binding energy of a system. (
Gravitational binding energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
I am going to pause at this point in the assessment of this video to say he seems to favor an incredibly simplified and almost derisive inclination to state evolution as bluntly and unfavorably as possible while still attempting to maintain neutrality. I do not find this becoming of someone claiming to be attempting to give people the facts and allowing them to decide themselves. Anyways, onward.
On the subject of radiometric dating, he fails to mention that more than a single "clock" is used in a sample for dating in billions of years. Uranium-235 and Lead-206. (
Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
He mentions non-chrystalized igneous rock is undatable, but he also fails to mention that once it crystalizes it is easily dated almost to the moment. This is due to the inability to obtain a sufficient amount of crystalized (formed atomic structures) isotopes in the material.
His sand analogy doesn't really apply given the instruments used to measure. This is why there is a variable answer given to every dating. (Example: between 250-265,000 years) This is because samples used to date are taken from different geologic areas that are within a given distance and can provide accurate results.
His reference to relativity is unimagintive and lacking and INCREDIBLY insulting. He goes so far as to say it didn't need mentioning. This is not the attitude of someone who is attempting to give people equal footing in both to determine what is true.
Because he made no rational arguments against relativity, and simply relegated it to non-application which, in the context of his own argument, is impossible to do. He proceeds to do it anyways.
At this point in the movie he goes into evolution, which is not my speciality. I am educated on the topic but my opinions are not that of an evolutionary biologist but as someone well versed in evolution.
He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.
Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.
At the end of this film I get very heavy impression he is simply pandering to a Christian crowd with pseudoscientific evidence. I don't appreciate his obvious derision of science in general.
Issues with some "world-wide" flood; there is 3 times less than the required volume of water on Earth to produce such a flood, given that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth. This would mean, in no uncertain terms, that there would be a shell of water with the bottom 2/3 volume MISSING! Empty air!
His little flatness theory is interesting, completely explainable by simply saying that sediments act similarly in air as well.
This poses a number of issues mathematically but I will stop there so I can continue watching.
