Astronomer Jason Lisle DESTROYS "Old Universe" in less than half hour - Page 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsa-A2ynkKs&feature=youtu.be

Nobel prize for sure. 

 

"I don't offer anything as proof because scientifically you can't prove anything is true.....which scientifically proves the bible is true" WTF??

Lol

 

Surprised this is only on YouTube, I guess the entire world news is in cahoots to suppress the truth.

Oh well I suppose there were no dinosaurs 65 million years ago then.

I guess you can't say anything negative about Dr Jason Lisle who earned his PhD.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

 

He is paid by creationists to make up creationist propaganda. 

 

Why is this work on YouTube and not in the peer reviewed scientific journals...Because it is BS. 

From wikki "....Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything[9] and he's no stranger to wall-bangingly circular logic.[10] It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do. So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't actually very scientific - indeed, for AiG to use him as a leading scientist is practically a sham, as it leads their audiences to think that his ideas - which aren't really his ideas, just the same old tired arguments - automatically have credibility due to his real PhD. Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism.

ARJ paper
See the main article on this topic: Anisotropic synchrony convention
In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals" - quite a backtrack from his earlier blog posts that seemed to indicate that he was actually doing original research himself. Lisle responded to the "pre-publishing" critics (hilariously overusing the word "embarrassing", and never really naming any critics specifically) by basically saying people should have an open mind until they read the paper.[12] Despite pimping and hyping his publication on the AiG blog, he was noncommittal to the idea of a "non-technical writeup".

 

Further comments

Lisle is clearly a smart guy who knows a bit more than most creationists, particularly about space. He is a confident speaker and quite passionate about science education when he isn't trying to replace science textbooks with the Bible. However, some of the points put into his essays and talks - to highlight perceived problems in "secular" theories - have been considered as highly misrepresented, or even non-existent. Some of them are, in fact, well known creationist arguments rehashed by someone who, frankly, should damn well know better. As someone who is torn between the worlds of science and Biblical literalism, Lisle mostly ends up shoehorning various random points into an ad hoc framework of bullshit that supports a recent creation regardless of what his scientific training must be screaming at him on a daily basis. A summary of some of Lisle's dumber points are outlined below.[7]
Earth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. At the moment it happens to be decreasing.
Recession of the Moon - He is making uniformitarian assumptions about its recession rate, and conveniently did not mention other lunar processes. However, he did mention that the creationist dust on the Moon argument should not be used.
Most of the 150 (then) known extra-solar planets are more massive than Jupiter and close to their parent star, quite different to the solar system - This is simply because we can detect such planets much more easily than lower mass planets in longer period orbits. How many planets which are similar to our own in existence is still unclear. Until recently, creationists denied that extra-solar planets even existed.[13] (It should be noted that the book this statement was taken from was written in 1982 before extra-solar planets were discovered.)
Deep time is a 'false god.' [14]
Climate Change, which he calls Global Warming - Lisle denies that climate change is caused by humans."

Look vk4, it’s not that people don’t have enough evidence their presupposition tell them what to make out of that evidence and I want to give you example; there was a man name vk4 that was convinced himself he was dead, he thinks he is dead and he is very upset about this and he doesn’t like being dead, who would? And his doctor Jason Lisle trying to “convince” vk4 look Sir, you are perfectly healthy - I mean (you know) you are not dead, you are walking and talking and the vk4 thinks about it and says yeah! But you know people can have muscle spasms even after clinical death and that would explain my ability walk and talk.
The doctor Jason Lisle says look I have medical charts showing you are perfectly healthy....vk4 says yeah but you know who knows that’s if you are interpreting that properly and it indicates maybe it’s not even my chart, maybe the name got swapped? And the doctor Jason Lisle says okay I am going to prove to you that you are not dead.....Do dead men bleed? Vk4 thinks about it for second, well circular system would be stopped; vk4 reply dead men don’t bleed! And doctor Jason Lisle very quickly takes a little pin, perks vk4 on hand and sure enough blood comes out on surface, the doctor Jason Lisle says see you are bleeding…which then vk4 responds well how about that I guess dead men do bleed…lol…Silly example but it illustrates the point! Did the doctor Jason Lisle have evidence for his position?
Absolutely! Vk4 can walk and talk, got medical charts and vk4 can bleed, did the vk4 find those evidence convincing? (in this YouTube video that shtal posted) No, because vk4 had a world view, vk4 had presupposition that he himself was dead and that presupposition told him how to interpret each one of those evidences…Vk4 always able to come up with rescuing device and clever person always will come up with rescuing device. That’s why you can’t just throw evidence at vk4 and expect to change there world view. There is no obligation for vk4 to do so (changing his position)…vk4 just going to interpret that evidence accordingly, vk4 just don’t need more reasons to believe, the world view challenge is where the problem I can see with debates.
Example; creationist might say see how these evidence that the Bible is true! And maybe it’s very good evidence that confirms creation and I think fossils are very good evidence that confirms world wide flood, don’t get me wrong but that is because I am looking at properly through Biblical glasses; the secular scientists will look at that same evidence through secular glasses and what is he going to say? That’s not how I see it; he is going to come up with a rescuing device to account for that evidence according to his world view. We can also talk about Canyon formation, see canyons can form quickly; secular may say maybe that one did! But how do you know that Grand Canyon formed quickly? You don’t know that? Creationist says Oh well we would need more “evidence” – look at rock layers can be deposited quickly! – Mt Saint Helens proved that… secular said well maybe those ones can form quickly – how do you know that all of them formed that way? maybe some of them slowly over billions of years?

example: Creationist say Oh but there are comets out-their they don’t last billions of years, secular says there is Oort cloud. 
Now it is not wrong to show to vk4 that there is evidence that is consistence with God’s word it confirms that, in fact I think there is value in that…but like I said this before evidence by itself never decisive because you always require world view to tell you what to make of that evidence - or in other words evidence by itself is not decisive because a person’s presuppositions tell him what to make of the evidence…

Thank you.

That is analogy of the dead is the dumbest most retarded thing I have ever read.

How embarrassing for you. I will paste that on another site to show how dumb creationists are.



Hilarious.

You guys should research what an ark is. Its actually a wooden box. Modern toymakers promoted a boat structure as it required their skills to produce it hence making them in more demand than simple box makers.

Shtals relies totally on the ark story to be true but he avoids any discussion of the physical impossibility of every aspect of the story.

Did Noah infect himself with rotovirus, herpes, HIV, polio....all the STD's or did they spontaneously appear after the flood by magic.