Why would someone think "The DVD's by Jason Lisle on apologetics are pretty much a slam dunk for creation."?
Has Dr. Lisle made some sort of new list of plausible evidences for his Young Earth Creationist views?
I just saw that statement posted in an R&S answer. Dr. Jason Lisle holds the distinction of being one of the very few Young Earth Creationists with a recent, legitimately credentialed PhD in a relevant scientific field. But his "young earth evidences" that I've seen online seem to be just a rehash of the old ICR lists which were debunked when I was a young guy in the 1960's. [I fell for many of them at that time because I hadn't yet studied Hebrew exegesis and comparative genomics basically didn't exist yet.] Dr. Lisle certainly has not published anything ground-breaking in the peer-reviewed science journals of his field. IF I'M WRONG, PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFICS OF PUBLICATIONS and what he "discovered". And many of his fellow creationists have certainly not provided flattering reviews of his ideas.
ARE THERE ANY REASONS WHY I SHOULD RECONSIDER DR. LISLE'S WORK?
[I'm a Bible-believing Christian who believes God created everything and certainly open to his viewpoints if he has anything new to contribute to the field. Young Earth Creationism is getting slaughtered in multiple fields but especially genomic studies where the theory of evolution and long time spans have been re-affirmed in stupendous ways through their predictive successes.]
JONATHAN asked the following question in his "answer" below but he has conveniently DISABLED email so that nobody can send him an answer to this:
>Please explain unfossilized dinosaur bones found with intact red blood cells and "100 million >year old" sea turtle fossils found with no change whatsoever
.......but if JONATHAN really wants to know, why not post to the Biology section where he will get LOTS of answers. Meanwhile, I don't understand why he thinks that poses a problem for evolution. An organism which has adapted well to its environment has no need for major changes!
But JONATHAN has well explained why I got frustrated and left the YEC camp: When all of our ideas got debunked, we resort to evasion and nonsensical questions which impress nobody except our own choir!
- secretsauceLv 79 years agoBest Answer
Response to @Frankinsense:
Kudos for pointing out that your response is a copy-paste from AnswersInGenesis, and for providing the link. However, only the biography sections are from that page. The last two paragraphs are from a different page that describes a debate between Lisle and Hugh Ross.
It is a little unfair that AiG gives a lengthy biography of Lisle, but none for Ross ... i.e. AiG is not exactly "neutral" in its reporting of this debate; Lisle is their boy. But since this question is entirely about Lisle, it is understandable that you only include Lisle's bio here.
But it's worth pointing out that Ross is also a creationist ... but an Old-Earth Creationist, and so the debate still centered around which view of geology was most consistent with the Bible.
But a couple of points jump out in your last two paragrahs:
>"Dr. Lisle responded that he had consulted his friendly neighborhood physicist, Dr. Russ Humphreys"
Ah, yes. By "neighborhood" Lisle apparently means "fellow at AiG".
For more about Humphreys glaringly faulty "research", see:
"RATE's Ratty Results: Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion 'Dates'
Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data"
Is it not likely that by "friendly neighborhood physicist", Ross was suggesting Lisle consult ANY randomly selected physicist, not "someone else at AiG"?
>"Lisle encouraged people to use "exegesis" (reading the Bible for what it actually teaches, interpreting Scripture with Scripture)."
That is not the meaning of "exegesis." So if Lisle said that, he is not much of an exegetic scholar.
In fact, it is a rather obvious prescription for using circular reasoning to arrive at any conclusion you want.
>"Dr. Ross objected to this and claimed that he was not reading his own ideas into Scripture."
For once, I agree with a Creationist (Ross).
>"But the proof is in the pudding: what one does is what we must examine, not what one claims to do."
This is of course true, but useless. Are we to examine the life and deeds of Lisle vs. Ross to see who is the better embodiment of Christian living?
>"An excellent way to carefully consider Dr. Ross' "exegesis" is to read Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's thorough and penetrating analysis of Dr. Ross' teachings in Refuting Compromise."
Ah, Jonathan Safarti, another AiG fellow. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
- KathrynLv 44 years ago
lol at the question. they should tape it to save LeBron some face. If he fuccks up on another dunk, or gets dunked on as part of a show he'll never be able to get over it. He needs to get over himself. BQ: I think his salary was about 23 mill? He probably made about 10 million in endorsements so that brings it to 33 million. He has a giant fanbase and I think he's making some kinda money with his business ventures in China, and alot of people buy his jerseys and he makes money off of that also. I think it's more likely that he made 45 million because his yearly salary isn't only salary + endorsements, he has other ways of making money. Forbes also may have counted investments. SI probably is sports related cash only, no business ventures. BQ2: I heard that Kobe wasn't gonna take the extension this year. Makes a bit of sense, because he's a bit more of a team player now, and he can test his value on the market when other big names such as LeBron and Wade are also free agents. That'd be a good time to opt out wouldn't it seem. I also saw a source say that Lakers offered Odom "north of 8 million" to come back today. So that's good for the team. BQ3: I thought about this before and It doesn't seem like it'd be too hard for Jack to just donate 2 million to Odom, better than Kupchak doing it, because the Lakers FO will have to pay 2 more million because of the luxury tax. BTW, i thought tiger was a magic fan. That one guy Matt Damon or Leonardo Dicaprio laker fans.
- JonLv 59 years ago
Please explain unfossilized dinosaur bones found with intact red blood cells and "100 million year old" sea turtle fossils found with no change whatsoever over that time frame when compared to the living turtles of today. Flying fish too.
Thank you and God bless
EDIT: In response to you, my email contact has always been disabled. It was not something I did on a whim or in a way to avoid answers. I am well aware that evolutionist claim that the creature may have no reason to adapt further but there is no evidence to support that. Everything 'apparently' mutates in someway or evolution would be a bunch of crap (which I think it is but I keep an open mind).Source(s): Christian
- РобертLv 79 years ago
Copy & Paste from:
Dr. Lisle graduated summa c u m laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” Among other things, he discovered a previously unknown polar alignment of supergranules (solar convection cells), and discovered evidence of solar giant cells. He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.
Dr. Lisle has authored a number of books and articles. His books include: Taking Back Astronomy, The Ultimate Proof of Creation, and Old-Earth Creationism on Trial. He is also a contributing author for the Answers Books volumes I and II. Dr. Lisle’s articles include the Logical Fallacy Series, Contradictions (introduction), Evolution: The Anti-Science, Atheism: an Irrational Worldview, and many others including our popular web feedbacks.
Selected articles by or about Dr. Lisle
* The Star of Bethlehem
* God & Natural Law
* An astronomical leap in creation
* Critique of “Origins” part 1, part 2
* Jason Lisle vs. Eugenie Scott on CNN!
* Death, dating and the days of creation
Dr. Ross tried to use radiometric dating methods as evidence that the earth is old. He said we should just consult our "friendly neighborhood physicist" for information about radiometric dating. Dr. Lisle responded that he had consulted his friendly neighborhood physicist, Dr. Russ Humphreys who, along with others in the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth), has provided very recent compelling evidence that radioisotope decay rates have been greatly accelerated in the past. See Rate group reveals exciting breakthroughs! Dr. Lisle also used Mount St. Helens as an example of rocks that are known to be young, but for which radiometric dating gives very old ages-proving that radiometric dating gives vastly inflated ages. (See 9819.)
Dr. Lisle also pointed out that old-earth ideas do not come from Scripture, but from outside sources. See Dr. Mortenson's groundbreaking study in his recent book The Great Turning Point. Dr. Lisle told the audience that reading old-earth ideas into the Bible is an example of "12360" (interpreting the Bible by reading into it one's own ideas). Lisle encouraged people to use "exegesis" (reading the Bible for what it actually teaches, interpreting Scripture with Scripture). Dr. Ross objected to this and claimed that he was not reading his own ideas into Scripture. But the proof is in the pudding: what one does is what we must examine, not what one claims to do. An excellent way to carefully consider Dr. Ross' "exegesis" is to read Dr. Jonathan Sarfati's thorough and penetrating analysis of Dr. Ross' teachings in Refuting Compromise.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
Because they are scientifically illiterate, and apparently so is anyone they discussed the DVD with.