Jason Lisle, Creationist And Astrophysicist On The Big Bang Theory

Submitted by: cjeffblanchr 3 months ago in Science


This is an incredibly interesting video I recently watched on YouTube by creationist and astrophysicist, Jason Lisle. For those who don't know who he is, the following is from his Rational Wiki page:

"Dr. Lisle is a creationist with a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado Boulder. Lisle earned his undergraduate degree from Ohio Wesleyan University summa cum laude with a double-major in physics and astronomy and a minor in mathematics. His postgraduate research concentrated on solar dynamics, utilizing NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) to monitor the surface of the sun. His dissertation "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism" is available from the University of Colorado and he has also published numerous papers in legitimate scientific journals concerning convection cells in the sun.

Although some creationists claim that a creationist could not earn an advanced degree from a secular university because of institutional prejudice against their beliefs,[6] Lisle's creationism failed to hinder his academic progress. While members of his Master's thesis and Ph.D. dissertation committees might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs, their evaluation of his work was based on his research and not on his personal beliefs."

While non-creationists will of course continue reading the part of Rational Wiki where they try to discredit him and this video, anyone with an open mind should give it a shot -- unless you're scared of being challenged, of course!

Edit: Just wanted to point out that the best part of this video starts at about 12 minutes in.  If you want to shorten it even further, start around 20 minutes and you get the majority of the point.  This was, I believe, pieced together from different lectures he did, so the whole video was not my point.  Some, if not all, segments were given to a Christian audience, so if you watch any part of it, just understand that of course he's going to be talking about his faith in there too.  Doesn't mean he has nothing good to say scientifically.
There are 103 comments:
Male 10,297
"That presumes that the speed of light and therefore the speed of radio is the same in both directions." 

Wait. Is he saying that maybe light moves faster to the left than it does to the right?

"According to Einstein..."

OK. Now he's invoking Einstein while "proving" that the speed of light is not a constant? I'm pretty sure Einstein would be face palming right now.

OK. I gave it a legit 30 minutes. I'm not finding anything of value here. Honesty, he just made me even more sure the Earth is not 6,000 years old if this is the best argument they have. This does a disservice to rational Christians everywhere.

What is more likely? That light moves at a different speed in different directions? Or that the bible is just a collection of bullshit folktales passed down by generations of superstitious people trying to explain a world they did not understand?
2
Reply
Male 474
holygod Wikipedia: "The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light was made in 1676 by Rømer (see Rømer's determination of the speed of light). From the observation that the periods of Jupiter's innermost moon Io appeared to be shorter when the Earth was approaching Jupiter than when receding from it, he concluded that light travels at a finite speed, and estimated that it takes light 22 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth's orbit. Christiaan Huygens combined this estimate with an estimate for the diameter of the Earth's orbit to obtain an estimate of speed of light of 220000 km/s, 26% lower than the actual value."
This is clearly an example of measuring one-way speed of light: Jupiter -> earth... Am I wrong there or did Jason Lisle miss this experiment? 
2
Reply
Male 10,297
boredhuman He misses lots of things. He's talking about measuring the speed of light with a clock and a flashlight. I don't know if he is dumb or he just thinks his audience is.

Also, you can synchronize clocks perfectly with radioactive decay. Or maybe that is just satan tricking us?
1
Reply
Male 10,297
Holy Shit (pun intended)

At 12:15 he lays out 4 pretty simple, widely accepted scientific facts, then simply says "that's contrary to a straightforward reading of the bible, so we can't compromise with that".

"The big bang cannot be harmonized with the bible, they are mutually incompatible"
Well on that we agree.

"The question is not how old is the universe because the bible gives us that information"
Well then this just stopped being science and started being theology. This in no way represents the scientific method.

"creation was supernatural"
He's taking a position as definitive that he has in no way proven. Again, this is not science, this is theology.

So basically this all comes down to "god did it"? That's his whole position?


2
Reply
Male 5,412
holygod Bingo. The presentations were remarkable for how contrary they were to the scientific method. It was preaching with some sciencey window dressing.
0
Reply
Male 22
 Can I have back the 15 minutes I've spent watching this video?  He makes the claim 
that creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically...and what scientifically is this based on?  His "theories" are based on an initial baseless claim.

We live in an empirical universe.  Creation occurred is an empirical statement.  If it's empirical, it's testable and can be understood scientifically.

3
Reply
Male 602
The fuck would I waste a full hour of my time to listen to more Neil Degrass bullshit? I left highschool man, if you have too, you should be beyond this kind of 101 bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
thething911 Wait. Huh? What does Neil have to do with this in anyway? If you think you fully understand the concepts NDGT explains in his videos and you learned it in high school then I'd really like to know where you went to high school.
2
Reply
Male 6,562
Interesting, the demonstration is the speed of light was an excellent example of why we need to be careful with assumptions, as it can stunt our findings, and then assumption can become the truth, when it might be a lie.


Fractuals as seen through the Mandelbrot set is very cool things, there is definitely something there in relation to our universe.

As for the age of the earth, i don't claim to know and still question that.

Also, a side note, i always wondered why the astronauts talked of the 'earthrise' when it's clear that the earth doesn't rise, it really makes those squares around the earth (that people found by increasing the contrast), raise questions about the 'accounts' from the moon.  If the picture of the earth 'rising' over the horizon of the moon was real, then we would have seen it every time they looked around, but yet we didn't.
 
Ultimately though, i don't expect anyone who hates God or religion to consider this, as they have made it very clear that they need their assumed stories to be true, and this presenter might raise question to that, which they would have a negative reaction to  This is exposed in this very thread with people rejecting the possibility of assumptions that this presenter is pointing out.  If anything though, i think that the assumptions that have been made in science need to be scaled back to quite some degree.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior The Earth does rise. Here is some science for you:

Because the Moon is tidally locked with the Earth, one side of the Moon always faces toward Earth. Interpretation of this fact would lead one to believe that the Earth's position is fixed on the lunar sky and no earthrises can occur, however, the Moon librates slightly, which causes the Earth to draw a Lissajous figure on the sky. This figure fits inside a rectangle 15°48' wide and 13°20' high (in angular dimensions), while the angular diameter of the Earth as seen from Moon is only about 2°. This means that earthrises are visible near the edge of the Earth-observable surface of the Moon (about 20% of the surface). Since a full libration cycle takes about 27 days, earthrises are very slow, and it takes about 48 hours for Earth to clear its diameter.[14] During the course of the month-long lunar orbit, an observer would additionally witness a succession of "Earth phases", much like the lunar phases seen from Earth. That is what accounts for the half-illuminated globe seen in the photograph.

2
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod Interesting, but i still question why they never thought to film more of the earth, i'm sure it would have been quite a site, but then again if it was faked i could understand why they wouldn't.
-1
Reply
Male 161
monkwarrior Science will not be scaled back. It will continue to explain our Universe. And as it answers more questions, your world will continue to shrink, and your place for the biggest assumption of all (god exists) will vanish. You will be left with nothing but an unused brain.
1
Reply
Male 6,562
BuckeyeJoe you've got the unused brain if you can't understand i was saying assumptions need to be scaled back to quite some degree.  It's really a shame you proved your judgement on me applying to yourself so easily and with such emotion.

Assumptions will put science in a rut, like it was when people assumed the only elements were fire, water, earth, and air.
-2
Reply
Male 601
monkwarrior Assumption is integral all types of thinking, investigation, learning or discovery. In fact it's essential in every day life independent of religion or science.
2
Reply
Male 6,562
mrteatime yes, as long as it is recognized as such.  But still, assumption doesn't equal fact at all, especially where it comes into play with evolutionists claiming facts for assumptions that no one can prove or has ever seen, such as the evolution of the eye, or the evolution of whales, as we have seen in the last few days.
0
Reply
Male 601
monkwarrior Indeed, much like the assumption that the bible is the divine word of god does not make it fact.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
mrteatime Yet the evidence of testimony and lives changed, and the great pillars it has provided for our society, not to mention the fact that people still find God today, shows that the Holy Bible contains the word of God.  Those who want to deny the evidence and not explore it might never find the truth.

Unfortunately with the the assumptions of evolution, no matter how hard someone explores, unless they by chance invent a way to visit the past and return, or have a way to explore every single inch level and layer across the entire earth (which we don't have), or some grand discovery that has yet to happen, you're still left with assumption.
0
Reply
Male 601
monkwarrior Nope. It's your assumption.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
mrteatime unforunately for you, because you ignore and have not explored the evidence of testimony to it's end, the assumption is yours.  You're no different than a grade 1 student trying to tell a grade 12 student they're just 'assuming' the answer to a quadratic equation just because the grade 1 student can't understand the calculations.
0
Reply
Male 942
monkwarrior I agree that assumptions will only hinder science.  In some ways we are already in the rut because of it.  Science is closing itself off to all possibilities that it cannot explain and using this as an excuse to reject other ideas, often for reasons that are not scientific at all. 
0
Reply
Male 601
cjeffblanchr Example?
2
Reply
Male 942
mrteatime Not being rude, but I was just addressing what monkwarrior said, and he knows what I'm talking about.  But, what I mean is that science--or rather scientists and those who closely follow science--are injecting their anti-theism into their interpretations.  I realize that it is not science's place to prove or disprove God, as this is outside of the realm of science.  Yet too many are using science as a means to claim that God is not real.  Science cannot close off what it can neither confirm nor deny.  But see, atheists are doing just that.  The likes of Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus are amonst them.

Yes, to be fair, some Christians also tend to take science and try to use it to confirm their beliefs, like Jason Lisle.  My intention in posting this video was not to try to prove anything scientifically, but rather to show that there are credible scientists who disagree with the norm.  Of course people are going to then try to discredit them, as is obvious in this thread, call them charlatans, fakes, deceivers, stooooped.  Lisle's point, when speaking to a Christian audience as he his here, is to show that there are interpretations that support God's word.  Of course the non-believer is going to reject it, just as the believer is likely to reject interpretations that conflict with their beliefs.  A layman of science isn't going to be able to know which interpretation is absolutely correct, even assuming they understand the different viewpoints.  And so they are left interpreting it according to their world view.
0
Reply
Male 601
cjeffblanchr I find that your comment regarding assumption hindering science is a little short sighted. Take evolution for example, we have vast amounts of data and physical evidence to support the theory of evolution. However with the timescales involved its inevitable that there will be gaps to fill in, assumption helps to fill in the gaps to create a working theory. Assumption is integral to scientific investigation and to life in general. I would also argue that assumption is pretty important to religion too.     
0
Reply
Male 942
mrteatime If we can equate assumption with faith then I would agree with your last statement.  And really I think we can.  They are more or less synonyms.  Which means that by your own admission, establishing working theories requires faith.

But I think you are talking about two different kinds of assumptions.  What started our conversation my my comment about assumptions hindering science.  As I explained, that comment was in regard to science assuming there is no God, no supernatural, no reason to believe that there is anything beyond what science can show us.  This isn't--at least so far as I can see--short sighted, for the reason I give in the next paragraph.

There are also assumptions that science makes in order to fill the gaps, as you said.  These aren't the same assumptions, and they are of course a necessary part of the scientific process.  You can't fully test a hypothesis unless you are making an assumptive claim.  There's nothing wrong with these assumptions, so long as they are not then claimed to be absolute proof of something, such as evolution.  For example, if we look at the DNA of say whales and hippos and see characteristics or segments that are identical, it is an assumption that this means they are evolved from a common ancestor.  I realize that is over-simplifying it, but essentially that is what happens.  This is where I have a problem--because this is just making the evidence fit a world view.  There are other possibilities for this evidence that don't include evolution.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
cjeffblanchr i can relate to that when i hear climate change 'scientists', what a confusing and convoluted mess assumptions have done there.
-1
Reply
Male 942
monkwarrior Yes, unfortunately, I think politics also seeps its corrupt little tentacles into science as well as everything else.  I'm sure some will disagree, but I suspect climate change is amongst them.
1
Reply
Male 5,412
cjeffblanchr I absolutely disagree with you on this topic, for the record. (Veteran IAB'ers know my position on climate change well; Jeff's fairly new around here.)
0
Reply
Male 942
squrlz4ever I think you might misunderstand me on this matter.  Or maybe not.  I have no doubt that climate change is a real issue.  My point is that I don't really see how anyone can claim that it's not also become a political issue.  It's divided nearly along party lines. 

I do question at times--because it is politicized--if it's as bad as some claim, but at the same time I recognize that regardless, there are no changes that people want to make to improve the environment that are not a good idea.  We should be good stewards of the world, which we currently are not.
0
Reply
Male 5,412
cjeffblanchr Oh oh oh! My apologies. You're right: I definitely misunderstood you. And I agree with you. Probably more so than any other topic in science in our lifetimes, climate change has become intensely politicized. There's no doubt about that.
0
Reply
Male 942
squrlz4ever No apology necessary.  I probably didn't state it clearly.  I do that sometimes.  For the most part, I think we're on the same page on this one.  It's a damn shame that it's politicized the way it is too, because it is slowing down progress.  For me, I don't care even if it is, as too many conservative say, "not real"...  what's it going to hurt to clean up our world?

And of course there are the animals.  We have no doubt destroyed their habitats; we no longer share the world with them, but dominate them, and it pisses me off when people hold them in low regard.
0
Reply
Male 161
monkwarrior You're an idiot.
2
Reply
Male 942
BuckeyeJoe And there it is, the most brilliant of all arguments.  It's hard to take your point of view and rebuttal of Lisle serious when you so quickly resort to insulting someone who doesn't agree.
0
Reply
Male 161
cjeffblanchr My insult to Monk was not an argument, it was an insult. I do not care what people believe, Jeff, I only care why. And Monk's "why" is nonsense, and his recalcitrance against reasonableness is idiotic. I need not suffer that, and will call it what it is. Providing him a platform for attention is counterproductive. 

Feel free to ignore my rebuttal of Lisle if you wish, I do not mind. It is not my point of view, however, as I did not develop the current understanding of relativity. I only claim expertise in knowing it. But you may not believe me of course - you do not really know I have a PhD. But I could probably prove it without disclosing my identity if you really cared.

Nevertheless, if it matters to you that what you believe is actually true - or most likely, then I strongly encourage you to abandon Lisle's explanations of physics. He is not describing correct physics, he is a charlatan. Since he is educated in the field, he will be able to fool those who are not - he will wrap his nonsense around partially correct ideas to hide them. The only defense at this point is for someone who is also educated to blow the whistle. I am that person, here at least. It is the hippocratic oath (if you will) of any scientist to do this. We care about truth. 
1
Reply
Male 942
BuckeyeJoe I have no reason to doubt your PhD, nor will I ignore your point of view--I asked for it after all.  See, as a Christian, I see a video like this, even enjoy it, yet I don't automatically jump on board with what's being said.  But I do consider it.  I also then like to see the arguments that oppose it and consider those as well.  I am, of course a layman, when it comes to physics.  I understand nearly everything when it is explained--except some of the complex math.  But I also cannot accept one scientist over another when they are disagreeing on the same matter, such as this. 

Though I can see why you would, I have no reason to consider Lisle a charlatan.  If he is wrong then he is wrong, most likely, not because he's trying to deceive anyone, but because it is genuinely how he has interpreted the data.  Likewise, if you are wrong, I wouldn't presume it is because you're tying to deceive anyone.  As with most things, I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I don't question yours or his expertise, I'm only interested in seeing the different sides.  Science is wrong too often (which I understand is its nature) for me to take any one viewpoint as absolute fact.  Science doesn't tell us anything--scientists do, and I think it is unlikely that any scientist is going to interpret the scientific facts without doing so under the cloak of their own world-view.  To do so would be against our nature.  So, Lisle has interpreted it according to his Christian world-view (which he admits), and you do the same under your atheistic world-view.  Both are understandable.

I think science and religion are compatible, but they are not comparable.  One cannot prove or disprove the other.


0
Reply
Male 161
cjeffblanchr Yes, I doubt Lisle believes he is mistaken. But you really need to understand the situation. It is not "one scientist disagreeing with another." It is the entire consensus of the scientific community disagreeing with him. 

He is wrong, not because he is misinterpreting the data, but because he is leading the data. He has a world-view that he needs to be true. He interprets his data (in this case, scientific theories) so that they can support his world-view. In doing this, he makes obvious mistakes that many undergraduates would catch. This is what leading the data will do: deceive you. Science does not do this. We create models that agree with observations - not twist observations to agree with models. What Lisle is doing is FUNDAMENTALLY NOT SCIENCE. Sorry for the caps, but you need to recognize this. It is charlatanry because he is claiming it is science when it is not.

And science is indeed sometimes wrong. Often wrong even. Do you know what corrects those mistakes? 

More science. Improved models and theories. 

You know what doesn't correct it? Ever? 

Religion. 

As we learn more about our Universe, it is religion that adapts to scientific discoveries, and it is religion that threatens to punish heretics that oppose scripture with evidence. Once the evidence is accepted, religion then changes its beliefs so that it does not become obsolete. Science has been disproving religious claims for centuries. I am so sorry that you do not recognize this. 

Science is not a world-view. It is a process. Skepticism is the world-view you meant to reference. And indeed the scientific method draws upon skepticism to ensure its beliefs are most likely true. We insist on only believing things for which evidence exists. That is a good thing. 

Religion is based on faith, which means believing things without evidence. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. 

Truth does not always lie in the middle. You said "I think science and religion are compatible." Suppose I replied by saying that "you are a banana." Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Are you a half-banana? Sometimes claims are just wrong, Jeff. Lisle's claim is simply wrong, and I bet you my first-born child on it. Not because I WANT it to be true. But because if it WERE true, so many other things/consequences would follow from that which are in DIRECT CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE OBSERVE. Light does not move at infinite speed. Signals sent to Earth from space shuttles going to the Moon and satellites in orbit incur a measurable delay. 

It is basic basic BASIC physics that demonstrates the speed of light is finite. I am not interpreting this from some atheistic position. Atheism is not a world-view, it is a rejection of a claim due to lack of compelling evidence. 
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr Well he does think the Earth might be flat. Does that make him an idiot? If not, what WOULD someone need to believe for you to label them an idiot?
1
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod you're still holding to your assumption that was proven wrong 15 or so times now?
-1
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior its not based on an assumption. It's based on you arguing with me that the earth might be flat. 

If you don't actually think so, it is exceedingly simple. Just say you believe with 100% certainty that the earth is a globe. Say that and I'll never say you think it might be flat again. 
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod unfortunately for you i've never said that the earth might be flat, and corrected you many times saying that "i simply question the curvature of the earth calculations".  In fact your pettiness is laughable, because you feel so sure you're right, when you simply show yourself to be completely ridiculous.
0
Reply
Male 5,412
monkwarrior Monk, that position of HG's, that you believe the Earth might be flat, was never proven wrong.

When we last debated on this topic, you had a chance to prove him wrong when I asked you to unequivocally state that you don't think the Earth might be flat. You refused to do so.

Instead, you bobbed and weaved and danced around the issue so much it made me dizzy. That's not an insult, incidentally. That's my honest, best attempt at fairly describing what happened.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
squrlz4ever unfortunately i still have never said "i think the earth might be flat", and have clearly stated "i question the curvature of the earth calculations".  I'm not going back into your false dilemma again, when it is clearly HG's bias, and unwillingness to be intellectually honest and represent my position properly.
0
Reply
Male 5,412
monkwarrior I will never understand this. If you want to prove HG wrong--and I think you do--all you'd need to do would be to state the following:

You say I think the Earth might be flat. WRONG. I don't think the Earth might be flat.

Easy-peasy. But you refuse to say it, which is one of the most baffling things I've ever witnessed.

At any rate, if you're saying you have no interest in revisiting this topic on which we've already expended hours, I agree with you there. Neither do I. So let's leave it at that.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
squrlz4ever i don't want to prove HG wrong, he is wrong, and doesn't want to correct himself, or worse still doesn't realize it and thinks his bias is fact.  Ultimately i question the curvature of the earth calculations, and if HG wants to misinterpert it to mean what their bias tells them, it's their loss.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior Is the Earth a globe or not?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod I don't know, i've never seen it with my own eyes yet, and i have have no reason to assume anything.

If you want to use that to say "oh so that means you think the earth might be flat", understand that is simply your bias, as you would also have to say:

"oh so that means you think the earth might be cone"
"oh so that means you think the earth might be square"
"oh so that means you think the earth might be torus"
"oh so that means you think the earth might be rectangle"
"oh so that means you think the earth might be cylinder"

It would be ridiculous to do, since it would be far more rational and intelligent to say "oh, so you don't know, so maybe you'll let me know when you do".  But i don't think you're at that level of intelligence yet.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior hahaha. You just said you aren't certain the Earth is round while simultaneously insulting my intelligence. You either are a world class simpleton or a world class troll.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod "i dont know" is a valid answer to your intellectual dishonesty.    Also since it's been shown that you employ intellectual dishonesty, your claim of what i am can easily be dismissed since we can see it was made in desperation.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior 

You don't know if the Earth is flat = you think it might be. 

How are we debating this?
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod Because you are ridiculous saying stupid things like if i don't know the earth is a cube it means i think it might be a cube?

I told you i don't have any assumptions of that.  I know what people have said, but it doesn't mean i think it might be one way or another, it simply means i don't know.

It's your own intellectual dishonesty that is being exposed and showing you to be ridiculous by claiming i think something might be when i don't even think about it at all.

you're so desperate to put words in others mouths it turned you into a fool.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior If everyone on a website interprets what you say in a specific way while you maintain that isn't what you mean it might be time to reevaluate the words you used because you probably aren't using them correctly.

I don't think god exists. However, if you ask me if I know he doesn't exist I'll say I don't know. That, of course, means I am open to the possibility that he might. 

I know the world is a sphere. That means I don't think it might be flat.

I don't KNOW we went to the moon. That means I think there is a small chance we didn't.

Its just the way word work. You can only stretch the interpretation so far.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod unforunately no one but you and squrilz4ever tried to interpret what i said in a way it wasn't applied. In fact squirlz4ever even backed out of posting their logic question in a logic forum, likely because they knew that the logic forum would say "it doesn't mean they might think that at all, that's simply biased"

It might be time to evaulate the intellectual dishonesty you use out of your bias and hate, as it's not anywhere near rational.

If you think there's a small chance we didn't go to the moon, then say that.  If you don't know, then say that.

I don't know the shape of the world, and i refuse to think it may be one way or another until i know for sure.  It's of little concern to me, yet it seems to be such a big one for you.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior ok let's ask someone from your side of the belief structure.

cjeffblanchr can you weigh in here? I'm curious to hear someone else's opinion. Maybe I am out of line.

When I asked Monk if he thought the world was a globe he said:

"I don't know, i've never seen it with my own eyes yet, and I have have no reason to assume anything."

He also said:

"I don't know the shape of the world, and i refuse to think it may be one way or another until i know for sure"

When I have asked him if you thought the Earth might be flat he has said:

"I don't know if it is or not"

Would you say a reasonable interpretation of this is that he thinks it might be flat?




0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod it's pointless, because you're trying to make your intellectual dishonesty work.  Obviously the only things anyone could say is :

"so you don't know, ok"

"so you don't know the shape of the world and you refuse to assume"

"So you haven't seen it with your eyes and don't know"


You don't just assume someone thinks something they didn't say they're thinking, and then demand they think it.  That's just being intellectually dishonest.

0
Reply
Male 942
holygod Hmmm...  good question.  I try not to label anyone.  I mean, I know some viewpoints are way out there, and what probably comes to mind would be scientologists and someone trying to convince me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real would come the closest.  But I'd probably call them insane before I would call them idiots. 
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr just fyi, NOBODY thinks FSM is real. If they tell you they do they are either a. Fucking with you or b. Trying to prove the point that saying something exists doesn't prove anything. 
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod Yeah, I know.  Not to get into an argument over it with you here, but I just think it's such a weak argument with a false equivalency, that to try to use it is nonsensical. 
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr Well, I mean, if I said prove to me god exists you would probably be able to convince me just as much as I could convince you FSM exists. That's the point. That's the equivalency. As ridiculous as you see FSM? That's how ridiculous we see FSM. Or Thor. Or Vishnu. Or Jehovah.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod unforunately for you, cjeffblanchr is right and it is a false equivocal, as people who know God know the reality of him, and that God is not a mockery or a falsehood.  Whereas people who don't know God, like yourself, and other anti-theists, will assume it is, but it's unforunate for them, because they only know one side of the story, and claim they know both when they don't.  Therefore they portray their ridiculousness, by being fallacious.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior YOU may know. I didn't say anything about that, or whether he exists. I said the odds of you convincing me of it are the same. That is equivocal. 
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod then it simply continues to show your appeal to ignorance, another fallacy used by you and other anti-theists.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior It is not an appeal to ignorance to not believe what you believe. In fact you just used it as the EXACT opposite of what it means, once again showing you have no concept of what the fallacies mean or how they work.

Appeal to ignorance means you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

For you to convince me god exists means the burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.

Don't use phrases you don't understand with people who do understand them.


0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod it's an appeal to ignorance to ignore the evidence of testimony that billions have studied and found God with.

you demonstrate you don't know the words you use more than i ever have, if you ask me.  This is why you continually fail with arguments here, lose your cool, and start labeling people out of your emotion.
0
Reply
Male 6,562
BuckeyeJoe if that's the best you have, you're likely your own judgement.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
I managed to watch 20 minutes of this drivel.
From what I've watched, if anything proves that the universe is billions of years old such as starlight, it's wrong. The truth is his god made it happen. After all...he made a 1 day old Adam look like a 20 year old so he could easily make the light from distant galaxy reach earth super duper fast.
This guy, in my opinion, is a fucking lunatic.
3
Reply
Male 6
Eh, IAB has really gone down in quality lately. With 5cats crazy posts and than bible stuff eesh. I am not against religion or anything but these kinda things are kinda pointless, maybe i would be more interested if someone could prove something with out a shadow of a doubt other wise all this seems like is propaganda. 

0
Reply
Female 1,609
sturekdrf You really can't complain if you don't submit anything. I don't always like the content, but I barely ever submit so I get what I get.  
0
Reply
Male 4,092
sturekdrf I do not think anything can ever be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Keep in mind Eisenhower had thousands of photos taken of the holocaust and tons of film and people STILL claim it never happened.
1
Reply
Male 10,297
daegog Some people on this site think the Earth might be flat. So....
0
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod some people are intellectually dishonest too, so..
0
Reply
Male 10,297
monkwarrior If you don't just say so and I won't bring it up anymore.
1
Reply
Male 6,562
holygod you've been corrected you many times, but you don't want to learn, because you think it's the only effective thing you have, but it only shows how ridiculous you are.
0
Reply
Male 161
Well, I have a PhD in astrophysics too, and I can tell you - his approach is appalling. There is this idea in science that the data should lead you to the models. What this person has done is just the opposite: he is retroactively finding data and interpreting it to fit what he wants to believe is true. I do not doubt that he has a PhD in the same field as me, but I guarantee you folks, what you see in this video is not science. It is not even in the ballpark. Any scientist would recognize this immediately. Do not be fooled, it is an old pseudoscience trick.
2
Reply
Male 942
BuckeyeJoe Can you explain which parts about the distant starlight is wrong and what a better interpretation is?  I'm not asking to argue, just want a different point of view on it.
0
Reply
Male 161
cjeffblanchr Einstein makes a rather reasonable assumption: the speed of light is isotropic. That is, light will move at the same speed no matter what direction it is moving. This guy makes the following argument: All light that is moving towards the Earth is doing so at infinite speed. All light moving away from the Earth is doing so at c/2. 

Why would light move at infinite speed if it was moving towards the Earth? What is so special about the Earth? Because then the earth could be only a few thousand years old - and agree with the bible. You see? He wants it to agree with his belief, so he leads the data. Given the giant piles of evidence which suggest the Earth is billions of years old (carbon dating, DNA record, geological column, solar system formation scenarios, the entire f-ing branch of nuclear physics), this yahoo is willing to ignore all of it and try to solve the starlight problem by incorrectly abusing the anthropic principle. 

There would be insane relativistic implications if the speed of light was infinite. For one, it would have infinite energy. This guy is not doing science. Whatever he learned in grad school he has either forgotten, or is intentionally abusing to persuade folks who don't know better.

The correct interpretation? Uhh, the Earth is more than a few thousand years old. 
1
Reply
Female 465
I watched the first 18 minutes or so of this and the logic so far seems to be:

Fractals exist.
Man didn't invent fractals.
Therefore God must have invented fractals.

There are lots of galaxies.
Therefore God must have created them to show us how big he is.

The idea that light from distant galaxies taking billions of years to get here is wrong because it contradicts the bible. 
Therefore the best argument against god is wrong.
Therefore god exists.

I'll explain how he addresses the complex and difficult light problem that would seem to prove that the distant stars and galaxies must have been there for billions of years because that's how long their light has taken to reach us.

"Er, dunno. God done it."

I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but's that essentially the jist of it.

I got bored then and stopped watching.
2
Reply
Male 5,412
DrCribbens DrCribbens, please send me an email at squrlz4ever(at)gmail.com. Once you've gotten my addy here, respond with an "OK" to this comment and I'll self-delete this. Thanks.
0
Reply
542
The bible is a book of stories that had been retold for millennium, through time the stories were warped and mistold but there is truth behind all the stories.

If god did create math and teach it to humans, it would bring a whole new meaning to god teaching Abraham the 10 commandments (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)
1
Reply
Female 8,161
layla_wilson - I suspect you are right, to a point. Some of it seems to be chunks of law, geneology and prophecy. what it most certainly isn't is the word of any supernatural being. Es[ecially not the KJV- a fine political book.. 
0
Reply
Male 942
layla_wilson I'm not sure I know what you mean, layla, about the 10 commandments, but I'm interested.
0
Reply
542
cjeffblanchr The Stories of the garden of Eden, the great flood/Noah's ark and others are actually rewritten versions of stories from ancient Mesopotamia. They beleived in gods who came from the sky and created mankind. It was these gods that gave us mathematics which to an extent you could describe as 10 commandments. every number is made up of a mixture of 10 commandments.

Now bear in mind that Abraham - the First Prophet of Judaism and Islam , was from Ur in Sumeria. He was told the stories he taught others when he was growing up.

Also The patron god of Ur was Sin who has strong links to Astronomy


0
Reply
Male 942
layla_wilson Okay, I got you now.  Numerology in scripture is something I've read about, though not a lot.  There's no doubt that the Bible and the Hebrew language ascribe certain meaning to numbers.  I never really considered the base 10 system compared to their being 10 commandments. 
0
Reply
542
cjeffblanchr Its not just Hebrew, its Arabic aswell. After all they are both derivatives of Akkadian
0
Reply
Male 10,297
OK. So I did a little background on this guy. He has a legit degree from a legit institution and is well regarded by his peers in several respects, so he has a viewpoint worth listening to.

He also believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old, so that is a bit troubling. Is that your belief as well cjeffblanchr?
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod I'm undecided on that to be honest.  The best part of this video begins at 12 minutes in where he talks about distant starlight.  He makes some incredible points, in my opinion, that answers the questions about how we could see distant starlight if the universe is young.  That doesn't necessarily mean that I believe it though.  I like watching videos like this as a counter balance to the typical view of things.  I don't have to agree with it to get something out of it, just like I don't always agree with the non-creationist views.

I appreciate that you took the time to look into Jason Lisle and can consider him with an open mind.


0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr I haven't watched the video, but I will later today, probably in it's entirety. 

Here is my problem: Science should start with no presumption whatsoever and then follow the data. What he seems to do, based off synopses I read, was start with the certainty that the bible is literally true and then find a way to make the data support that conclusion. I think you'll agree that is NOT the way science should be conducted.
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod He does start off with the assumption that the Bible is true and God is real.  He's no doubt a Christian first, and he does interpret science according to that.  He doesn't make any secret of the fact.  Nevertheless, when he's giving his scientific explanation, he's pretty good at sticking just to scientific facts, though he mentions God on occassion.

I don't really agree, or necessarily disagree, with your last statement...  let me explain.  He views science through the lenses of a Christian, as I said.  But this isn't far different than how most people view science.  Science should only be conducted in regard to observable facts, but I'm not so sure that that is always possible.  See, the problem with these discussions is that we discuss science and God--two things that are not really contradictory (in my view) but which are not in the same realm--science cannot prove or disprove God.  But I would maintain that it is difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to interpret scientific observations and facts without bringing their personal world views into their interpretations.  I mean, whatever we believe, of course we're going to try to see how those facts fit in with how we perceive our reality.  I think this is true for both believers and non believers.
0
Reply
Female 8,161
cjeffblanchr you realise that for most Christians the world over they manage perfectly to both believe in God, and understand the bible to be what it is- written by men. bit and bobs over a great strtch of time, which contains truth, but is not true? 
0
Reply
Male 942
madduck I'm not interested in what most Christians believe.  I'm interested in truth.  I believe that it can be found by using both the Bible and science, eventually.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr Science can't disprove GOD, but it can disprove the bible.

Here is the difference. If a Christian finds data that leads towards the bible being untrue then their bias causes them to ignore it or manipulate it to change the conclusion. If a secular scientist finds data that leads towards the bible being true then great.

Christian scientists need the bible to be proven true. Secular scientists don't care. In fact if they discover something that proves the bible they become world renowned and rich. I have no problem with the bible being true or god being real. I have no vested interest one way or the other.
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod Your point is understood, and you're not wrong.  However, would you concede that it's possible that a secular scientist who is anti-theist for whatever reason could take that disbelief into the lab and that it could influence their interpretation of the data?
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr I'm not saying it isn't possible, but if they are like me it isn't. I do not look for god to not exist. I just observe that he doesn't based on my interpretation of the evidence available and the experience I have had. I am open to that changing at any time.
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod After the conversations we've had, I believe that about you entirely.  I've just seen alot of things that make me believe that the majority of people don't do the same.  People are too often followers rather than really looking into things and thinking for themselves.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr I honestly think most atheists would prefer to believe in God. It makes the world a lot less scary.
1
Reply
Male 942
holygod I suppose it does kind of give a certain comfort to a believer--that everything will be all right, that a supernatural being has everything under control.  At at same time, I, as a believer, sometimes think it would be easier if there were nothing after this life, that there would be no accountability, and than when I die I just go into eternal, unconscious nothingness.  I know that is a hopeless, even faithless, way of thinking, but sometimes I just feel what I feel.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr There is no accountability though. The bible, or at least certain interpretations of it, teaches that. You aren't accountable for anything you do. You can be the worst person alive. All that matters is you repent at the end and accept JC as your lord and savior.
0
Reply
Female 8,161
holygod - and THAT, right there is the bit that bothers me. when I am dead I am dead- nothing of me remains but the memory of me, and the residue of the actions I might have performed in life. The older I get the more important it becomes to do the right thing, so that I can be happy in my skin while alive, and so my family can remember me fondly. I get no redemption, no second chance- an evil action is a stain on me until my name is forgotton...if I believed in that Christian thing I could be a horror show until death- look at those bloody evangelists- they are terrible people, no mercy, kindness or compassion- but I think they truly believe.
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod Well, there is accountability--as I understand it.  We are accountable in that we will all have to stand before God someday and be judged according to what we have done.  But those who accept Christ are held blameless for their sins.  So in a sense you're right.  At the same time Jesus talked about those who would be greater and lesser in the kingdom of heaven.  I don't honestly know entirely what is meant by that, but I would think it was somehow related to the things we have done in life.  That seems a bit contradictory on the surface to the teaching of faith over works, but that is more for salvation.  

Even though according to scripture I have salvation, I still consider myself to be accountable, because I will have to stand before God and maybe feel the shame of my failings, even if I am then held blameless.
0
Reply
Male 4,092
Come on guys, these hour long vids are just a bit over the top lol.

I like to hear other viewpoints, but if they cant get their point across in 20 min.. meh.
0
Reply
Male 942
daegog Yeah I thought about that when I posted it.  I'll not usually watch a video this long myself if it's posted here.  But I couldn't find a shorter version.  All I can say is that the best part of this begins at 12 minutes in.
0
Reply
Male 10,297
cjeffblanchr You can post to a youtube video at the minute mark you want using the time code.
0
Reply
Male 942
holygod Really?  I did not know that.  I'll have to figure out how.  Sorry guys!
0
Reply
Male 5,412
cjeffblanchr No worries. When you find a YouTube video you want to share, don't simply copy the URL from your browser's address bar. Instead, click the Share button on YouTube beneath the video. A window will pop up that includes a checkbox labeled "Start at." Click that checkbox and then enter the starting point you'd like in minutes:seconds. A URL will then appear within the Share window that will cause the video to start at the exact time you entered. Copy that URL, paste it into your IAB submission (or wherever it is you want to use it) and you're golden.
0
Reply
Male 942
squrlz4ever Ah, cool, I just looked at it.  Thanks!  I'll remember than next time.
1
Reply