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? OPTIONAL DETAILS: 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... show more Has Dr. Lisle made some sort of new list of plausible evidences for his Young Earth Creationist views?

OPTIONAL DETAILS:

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.]
Update: ============================================================= 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"... show more ========================================...

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!



6 answers 6