I highly recommend Dr. Lisle's book "The Physics of Einstein"! Truly one of my favorites. Helped greatly with the Light Time Travel challenge.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I'll have to check it out!

@Jay123hollis

2 жыл бұрын

I love Albert Einstein I read Albert Einstein's books relativity and relativity the special and general theory Albert Einstein was one of my heroes growing up.

@anyone9689

7 ай бұрын

light isnt just the problem , its all the interacting galaxies midway through apparent billion year collisions , all the displaced stars . google " the mice galaxies" there are good pics and there are great simulations in youtube videos

40:58 The Tunguska blast (1909) was an airbust comet or meteor of fairly small size, about 300 feet or so in diameter. But it hit an area where nobody was really living. If it had hit over a major city, it would have likely leveled it. A big problem with impacts like this is that most of the Earth is covered by water, so we've probably been hit by a few relatively large meteors since 1909, but because they've hit the oceans or airburst over it, nobody's around to see them. I think a few have been picked up by launch detection systems or something however. I do recall a fairly recent one mentioned.

28:00 because most of the impact craters on Earth are actually missing the source of their impact (because the meteors essentially vaporize), it wasn't really known that they would be caused by an actual thing falling to Earth, and we knew already that a lot of craters were volcanic. Plus, fairly often these craters can be found in areas with some sort of historical volcanic activity, so until geologic science could figure it out, and we inevitably were able to find fragments of their impactors at some sites and some softlanded ones that have made small craters, we just didn't really know for sure until relatively recently. The Tunguska event was also something of an idea that perhaps impactors regularly exploded in an airburst (true) and created the craters that way, but later we realized that at least for the larger ones, there was a definite impact of an object into the ground. Like Meteor Crater in Arizona.

@austinpatterson672

3 жыл бұрын

David Butler; Dr. Lisle is not a liar..... Who are you? Wow , that was one big judgement...

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@austinpatterson672 An educated person, that’s who. ‘Dr’ Lisle has forsaken the credentials he once earned by railing against his very own peers, myself included, in order to advance pseudoscience and creationist nonsense. Not a single practicing expert, Astrophysicists included, would agree with the disinformation that Lisle is peddling here. This is the reason why Lisle doesn’t and never has held a job IN that field. He literally quit to engage in creationism. Nothing he now says can be trusted especially whenever he openly conflicts with established facts in science

@PortmanRd

11 ай бұрын

​@@austinpatterson672But mainstream scientists are? 🤔🤨

@davidgardner863

11 ай бұрын

@@austinpatterson672, Any amateur astronomer knows that he’s lying about comets. He says there’s no evidence of the Oort Cloud but new comets enter the inner solar system every year and their speed and trajectory reveal their source. Also the material blown off comets constantly replenish the dust he says shouldn’t exist.

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

H elp me with this please: What exactly is the magic in or significance of 6,00 years? If the lon supposes the priests of some obscure arab tribe- theauthors of the jewbook that the loon calls bible to be so authoritative, why does he not adopt their religion and be come a judaist or Jew; what is the magic in or so special about the jewbook. why latch onto the jewbook as his magic book?Genesis is book one of the Torah the foundational text of Judaism, so logically the loon would adipt thatt religion. The other natural question is why tack the jesussey onto the end of the foundational text of a religion that has *fcuk_nothing* to do with Mr. ben-Joseph or old josh-the hero of the jesussey? What the fcuk has Christianity to do with Judaism and its jewbook?I gather that the Lisle loon may like to imagine himself to be a christian , when of course he could no more be able to be able to come a christian than he could stand on his own shoulders. Literalism clearly turns its followers into loons, that deceive themselves all too easily.Why does the Lisle loon take the jewbook literally when he is not a Jew? Even we Jews do not take it literally, since we have rules about deliberate stupidity.

27:30 The Earth and for his mention, Io, have a relatively low number of craters because their surfaces are constantly being reworked by tectonic or volcanic activity. Io's crust is heavily impacted by Jupiter's gravity, all but tearing the moon apart and giving it a tremendous amount of active volcanoes. The Earth is subjected to plate tectonics or weathering which eventually either subducts a crater or erodes it away. Most other bodies in the solar system either have no tectonics or no atmospheres to effect any weathering, so what you see are cratered surfaces that show impacts from billions of years ago. Others have icy compositions that mitigate cratering or may even hide some of them.

I don’t find Hugh Ross “well-reasoned”. But I do appreciate Dr Lisle engaging him.

Is it hard to arrange interview with Dr Lisle? How did you did organizied it? I would Like to do that, he really is genius :) thank you

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

You can use the below Contact page to reach out and request an interview. biblicalscienceinstitute.com/contact/

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn't difficult, it was just about trying to get schedules to work out.

@vinkosusac1130

3 жыл бұрын

C4C Apologetics thank you very much 😇😍

28:40 Um, the Chixulub crater is most definitely an impact crater. Not only does it have the central uplift region that large impact craters create, but it also has the shocked quartz and beaded particles associated with an impact and fallout from it. This was all fairly recently core-drilled and definitively proven (as far as science goes to that end anyway). 'Tim Clarey' is a moonlighting geologist/creationist who plays both sides of the aisle, having published himself quite a few works where he invokes deep time observations, but then (when he's playing creationist) argues that such stuff is hooey. If you're looking to that guy as a source, you are misleading yourself. He's in it for the $$ at least a bit more transparently than Lisle is, who knows a lot of this stuff too because he's certainly read about it, but his schtick is about lying by omission. He knows what to lie about and what to mislead people on. The interesting thing about the Chixulub crater is that it was found somewhat by accident. When the KPG impact theory was first devised in the late 70's/early 80's, it was only hypothesized as being caused by a meteor impact because of the Iridium layer we find in the KPG boundary, knowing that meteors are a strong source of this element. But a gravitational survey done by petroleum industry found the actual crater, and after scientists investigated it, they determined that it was the right age to be the impact crater that likely caused the KPG extinction. There's a great special that Discovery or Nova did on the recent core-drilling about it, and quite frankly it's so conclusive that at this point we're only trying to figure out how extensive the impact's effects were.

@johndodson8464

2 жыл бұрын

Creationists publish in many different journals. A Creationist may argue, for example, that S-W3 comet cannot be more than 100,000 years old. This does not mean that he is conceding a 100,000-year age. He is merely arguing reductio absurdum that the solar system cannot be 4.5 billion y.o. You really do take an unprofessional, vindictive view. You called Dr. Lisle a "liar" in a previous comment and attribute self-centered motives to Clarey. You really think these guys are in it for the money, clown???? They get hounded out of all the government grants, unlike you. And we all know that you would sell your mother's soul for a buck (see how silly it is to attribute motives to someone, baselessly?)

@davidbutler1857

Жыл бұрын

@@johndodson8464 ///Creationists publish in many different journals./// Creationist internal publications. Not scientific peer reviewed journals. ///A Creationist may argue, for example, that S-W3 comet cannot be more than 100,000 years old. This does not mean that he is conceding a 100,000-year age. He is merely arguing reductio absurdum that the solar system cannot be 4.5 billion y.o. /// No, Tim Clarey has some very specific secular publications that directly talk about detailed and relative ages of stratiagraphic layers. ///You really do take an unprofessional, vindictive view. You called Dr. Lisle a "liar" in a previous comment and attribute self-centered motives to Clarey. You really think these guys are in it for the money, clown???? They get hounded out of all the government grants, unlike you. And we all know that you would sell your mother's soul for a buck (see how silly it is to attribute motives to someone, baselessly?) /// LOL Tim Clarey and Jason Lisle haven't done any real work in their fields for a very long time. Clarey went to work for ICR a long long time ago, and Lisle himself immediately went into Creationism work after getting his PhD. They DO make more money than they would in private industry and research... these fields don't normally pay very well, but Creationist groups like ICR and Lisle's BSI get charitable donations that are tax exempt and their 'salaries' are easily 2 or 3 times what they'd make in normal work. So yes, they DO it for the money primarily. Nobody hounds these people out of government grants, they just know that Creationism pays better. It's a racket. Everyone knows this. Look at Ken Ham's net worth... $54MILLION.

Great interview thank you for inviting dr jason lisle.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, God bless 🙂

@ryanfieldflower602

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics God bless you to brother

OK, so the instant God created Adam (as a non-infant adult) an outside observer would have looked at a full grown Adam and then estimated the age of the earth at that time to be at least as old as Adam looked, yet according to Genesis that outside observer's estimate would be entirely wrong. Same applies to trees, God created the trees, some big, some small, so a outside observer goes up to one of the big trees, shoves in a corer, pulls it out, counts up 100 or 200 or whatever rings, and concludes the earth must be at least 100 or 200 or whatever years old. But he'd be wrong too. Creation was a discontinuity. You cannot apply continuity to a discontinuity. On the day God created stars and distant galaxies, He created them as presently observable objects. God didn't need to sit back and wait several light years for the light from the star He just created to reach the earth, the same One who created the star created also the stream of light so that it could be observed. No need for any fancy scientific explanation where there is none, nothing can explain the instantaneous creation of an adult man or large tree or an instantly observable distant star. I don't want to discourage anyone from having fun thought experiments but ultimately they aren't really necessary.

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

It' only a story sunshine, there never was any Adam, which was he invention of Arabs; Its's only a story like any other story dreamed up by men(human beings/dreaming machines)Adam is an Arabic word - means mud

Did I understand Dr. Lisle correctly did he say the earth didn't get as many craters as other planets because it was covered in water which would suggest some kind of gap that while the earth sat covered in water before God gives his first command on day 1 that the other planets got cratered but then says he believes the other planets were heavily cratered on day 4. The earth wasn't covered in water on day 4.

God is the Great Mathematician!

@josiahjudah3126

3 жыл бұрын

Not just great but infinately the greatest

@chrisphillips5636

3 жыл бұрын

He invented mathematics

@professorneturman2249

2 жыл бұрын

* Fictional character of religious mythology

@PortmanRd

11 ай бұрын

Doesn't add up. 😂

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

If i doubt go for idolatry eh?

So when did Gid create the shapeless earth? I’m commenting in regards to minute 10:29

I would love to hear what he thinks about the so called "Axis of Evil" in cosmology.

@Kenneth-ts7bp

Жыл бұрын

EVIL Expanded Visible Instant Light

Very comprehensive interview! I'll recommend this to some others! Thanks from Generation Z

@hotchocolateconnoisseur

3 жыл бұрын

I personally loved the segments about the Flood and the Ice Age

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the kind words! May God continue using this video for His glory!

Awesome video, thank you!

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment! What did you like best about the interview?

@Mr_J_Brown

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics what I liked were the questions you asked, you obviously did your research and that allowed Dr Lisle to explain some concepts Ive not heard before. I've subscribed to your channel keep up the good work and God bless

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks man! If you have any ideas for future interviews,let me know. I got Greg Koukl this week, and J Warner Wallace and Strobel should be early 2021.

Lisle is awesome.

Great interview! Cheers👍🏻

Even tho i dont understand completely. I love to hear the depth of his knowledge of Gods whole creation

l've been watching much of Jason's videos lately, and l really enjoy them! Being an astrophysicist ...he would know something about these things, and he stands strong on the Word of God! lt would be nice if creation scientists got a bit more respect, but l guess thats the way it is for people who love Jesus. _''lf the world hates you, understand that it hated Me first''_ ~ John 15:l8

@davidgardner863

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps the reason creation scientists don’t get much respect is because they start with a conclusion (the Bible) and work backwards looking for the evidence that fits their religious belief. Real science doesn’t work that way. It draws a conclusion from the evidence after being peer reviewed by an unbiased worldwide scientific community.

39:00 Um, this is called the Late heavy bombardment. And no, 'uniformitarianism' does not infer a 'cratering rate'. We can see in geologic history a trend of impacts, but it's from high to low as the solar system formed. The Earth was subjected to a fairly frequent bombardment soon after formation, but as Jupiter, Earth, and the other planets 'scooped up' a lot of these (one such impact formed the Moon), eventually this frequency of impact diminished over time. We can even 'see' this a fair bit by looking at the moon as we see cratering overlays and can estimate some of the ages of these impacts, noticing that the Moon rather interestingly displays this impact history. And then of course Lisle just tosses all of this off as 'well maybe it all happened during creation week'. Right.

@davidgardner863

Жыл бұрын

And also the surface of the moon is covered by regolith or dust that is the result of eons of meteorites and micrometeorites pulverizing the rocky surface and softening its features.

He can't comprehend, he just trust. But don't worry, much of Lisle's science can't be recreated in our lifetime and thus is still subject to change; that's what science mostly is as he stated.

@dcmastermindfirst9418

Жыл бұрын

That's rubbish. Dr Lisle himself stated that science is fully observable and testable in the present.

With regards to Carbon-14 in coal deposits, the current hypothesis is that radiation from uranium baring rocks causes the creation of new C-14 in the coal beds and other fossil fuels.

@pcon89

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Law Nitrogen 14. Background radiation in the rocks provide the N-p reaction.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Law Of course you can. It's highly accurate, well within 1% error margins inside of 10,000 years, and beyond that doesn't vary that much until it reaches the end of its envelope. Plus we have ancient history to use as a calibration tool, like how the Pompeii site preserves relics from around 2,000 years ago and we know the precise date of the eruption from contemporary sources, not to mention innumerable other relics and documentation going back to periods much older, along with Egyptian sites... we have a 'very' good idea as to the reliability of C14 dating... heck, even the Dead Sea scrolls were accurately dated to correspond to their composition.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Law Doesn't matter. The method of dating is meant to measure the age of the carbon 14 that is taken in by an organism. It doesn't matter if you find C14 elsewhere.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Law Uh, no.... the carbon14 is being created because the coal contains a small amount of nitrogen and when bombarded by the background radiation from cosmic rays or p40 decay, you get C14 just like in the upper atmosphere.

28:53, Also, Chixulub crater is 'round'. In fact if you look at the map of Cenotes in the Yucatan peninsula that form its outer edges, you can see this. Most of the crater is underwater, but if you look at the geologic survey images of this, it's very round. Here's the Gravity anomaly map of it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater#/media/File:Chicxulub-Anomaly.jpg So Lisle here is just outright lying about this.

@josephhill7618

Жыл бұрын

Yeah no. A dude that has dedicated his entire life to these studies isn’t going to wrong compared to some random hey look I pulled a article on the internet so it must be true person. 😂

@davidbutler1857

Жыл бұрын

@@josephhill7618 He’s an Astrophysicist only by education. He has never held a job in this field and the information I shared has been affirmed by countless experts who DO have jobs doing this for a living. Jason Lisle is a cheap young earth creationist apologist.

@davidgardner863

Жыл бұрын

He also neglected to mention shocked quartz, an indication of impact.

@PortmanRd

11 ай бұрын

But you'll believe a creationist apologist?

How do meteors get through the dome? As Sabine Hossenfelder observed meteors “always seem to fall into craters.”

18:56 again with the Oort cloud, comets certainly can last Billions of years because that's how gravity works. At the distances of this cloud (40,000 to 200,000 AU from the Sun), and over time, they are gravitationally influenced by other stars and of course, each other. This can take an object that has possibly sat in this gulf for 2 billion years and rather suddenly create a deviation, however minor, in its orbit and trajectory and then send it hurtling towards the Sun (a journey which can take quite a bit of time itself). Gravity is why the orbits of the planets around the Sun haven't fundamentally changed in the thousands of years we've been observing them, and it's also why we can shoot a probe out into space, and using rather basic calculations, anticipate when (to the precise time) it will arrive in orbit around a distant planet. Gravity's influences/effects are very well known, and when we look at what comets are, we can correctly deduce their origins/ages, and moreover, now that we've actually visited a few of them, we know their actual compositions. More or less what we long predicted them to be. All that said, Oort's papers/writings/lectures on this subject are mostly public and pretty readable even for a layman, so if you think his hypothesis (from 1950 at the time) is some sort of 'rescuing device', that would also be a huge misconception because he based this on simply what he was seeing with cometary observations and data crunching. And so far all the data we have now reliably cements it. Sorry, but it's not some sort of secular plot to avoid the implications of creationism.

@jeezed2950

2 жыл бұрын

"Comets can last billions of years because that's how gravity works" in what universe is that an acceptable answer to a question that really has no relevance to it? That's like saying the moon can naturally be exactly the way it is because that's how rocks work.

@davidbutler1857

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeezed2950 It’s what we SEE. We know that things in space are not just old but that the things they do take a very long time. A comet’s orbit for example will have a trajectory that tells us where it is going, where it comes from and how long it will take because virtually nothing will interfere with its speed. That can be thousands or millions of years depending on that orbit. Some of them may even originate beyond the Oort Cloud region too. There are other things like observed galaxy collisions, emission jets, gravitational lensing, the stellar evolution (HR) diagram, nucleosynthesis which gives us an idea of how stars form and why, so so many things that point to long ages and nothing (absolutely nothing) that points to a young Earth or universe. We have TREES that are as old or nearly as old as YECs think the Earth is. The only arguments we see is a bunch of lies or misdirection about how we know these things from wackos or professional cons (like Lisle) on KZread

@letscatchthemall6862

6 ай бұрын

Nope wrong Comets don’t last billions of years Unless your smarter than all those who study and do the math on these comets Oort Cloud is a myth, a godlett, a spaghetti flying monster made up to try and save the religion of evolution

@letscatchthemall6862

6 ай бұрын

@@jeezed2950I believe he doesn’t know what he’s on about 🤭 Billions of years is disproven

Pacific Ocean has a huge cavity at the bottom? How did it happen?

@rogerphelps9939

16 күн бұрын

Just plate tectonics.

Everything about this video is correct

He worked with "Answers in Genisis"? That makes him some sort of nutter.

What happened to Dr. Walt Brown's hydroplate theory? It has much to recommend it, but I rarely hear any Biblical creationist reference Dr. Brown? Has this been discredited? I can't see how. Please comment

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure, maybe someone else can answer this question.

@marcocappelli5124

3 жыл бұрын

Jacques The Hydroplate theory is simply impossible. The amount of energy it would produce would make the Earth to be as hot as the sun.

@jacquestaulard3088

3 жыл бұрын

@@marcocappelli5124 can you elaborate? Have you read/studied 'In The Beginning" by Walt Brown? Also, there is a lengthy, academic-quality piece by a student of Prof. Brown,'s, Brian Nickle: kzread.info_Hydroplate/videos.

@marcocappelli5124

3 жыл бұрын

@@jacquestaulard3088 Hydroplate theory states that massive amounts of Earth rock were propelled into space, forming all comets and TNOs. The mass necessary equals a 10% of Earth's mass. Can you imagine how catastrophic that would be? The very energy released in this process would fry the Earth. I haven't read that book. But is it supported by peer-reviewed papers? Are there any models they've made to recreate this process? No? Then why do you trust them?

@jacquestaulard3088

3 жыл бұрын

You haven't read the book or objections to the book. You insist on peer-review? You conclude that these things are not reasoned out nor modelled nor thought out. Then you disrespect me by affirming that I 'trust them?!' Them? I asked about one man's work, Dr. Walter Brown, PhD, MIT. Let's keep away from innuendos. I asked a question. You merely asserted, without peer-reviews, models or recreations that the only conclusion is 'imagining' how 'catastrophic' it would be and 'fry the earth.' Please do not argue nonsense when I merely asked : What happened to Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory? If you are familiar with it, with his relations among creationists, and his large, well-informed and credentialed friends, then perhaps you can give me an informed opinion.

I love Jason Lisle but I also love Hugh Ross ... oh boy ... lol

I wonder if the ice age allowed mankind and also many species of animals to traverse the entire earth through landbridges that existed because of the water being contained in glaciers/icecaps instead of the ocean?

Respect the beard 🧔🏻

@jeffb1106

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed!

Speed of light? Are we talking wave form vs particles. Light is both. Light is not a constant, but has shown variances, and as well degradation over time. Moreover, light is not the highest speed.....

The vav disjunctive is also used between chapt. 2 and 3 _NOW the serpent was: and this time has a clear gap of time between the last verse of chapter 2 and first verse of chapter 3 and the parenthetical information is clearly applied to the statement after which is the serpent rather than the statement before. This same scenario occurs again between Genesis chapter 3 and 4. Also the first waw or vav disjunctive in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God created the heaven AND the earth is completely ignored. What sequence is broken here. Also he and others say that God started with this ball of water but Job 38 starts with a first rock the corner stone and then lays the foundations, plural and the sons of God watch and rejoice from the first rock onward.

47:15 Uh, no. That part of the world was more fertile in some areas because of sea levels and various changes to river systems and a bit of climate change as well. This is all a fair bit too complicated to go over in a short space, but this is Lisle just spitballing again. I 'get' that it's just easier to say the flood explains everything, but we can and have looked at the soil, water systems, biodiversity and geologic changes in these areas and we know pretty well what they looked like and why. Also to mention, plenty of people lived near mountains in this part of the world so it's not that they would be unfamiliar with snow or ice.

Way too many ads. I like Jason Lisle but there were too many interruptions.

What caused the fountains of the deep to open up?

@ronbusby3335

2 ай бұрын

The Lord did it. “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.”-Genesis 7:11

Hi David Butler, it's hard to scroll down so I wrote a new comment. Could you show us mathematically how the half-life(T/2)=4.5x10^9 yrs of 238 Uranium obtained? Then let's investigate each line of calculation. I have one question, the decay rate(dN(t)/dt = λN(t)) and λ-> decay constant. At t=0, dN(0)/dt = λN(0) obtained experimentally as decays per unit time(Bq or curie), at t=half-life=T/2, can you or any physicist prove experimentally that dN(T/2)/dt = λN(T/2) = 0.5dN(0)/dt ? .

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment (or any of my comments). There are plenty of resources out there on how this works and how your question is/was determined. I would imagine since you have already obtained some of the calculation information, you are aware of these. I would suggest that you not look towards people on KZread comments for these answers, as I am certainly not interested in cobbling together all of that information for you, and there is no brief answer to your query. This is a homework/research question. Good luck.

@jbangz2023

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 Thanks, actually it is impossible for anyone to prove experimentally that at t=half-life, the decay rate is half at t=0, since no one lives 4.5 billion yrs to carry out the measurement.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jbangz2023 Yeah, um, this is what we tend to call 'hacking stupid'. When some creationist idiot thinks that they're being clever by ignoring basically all the science behind something while pretending to know it. So about your issue... nobody needs to do that. We can validate the decay/rate using other methods. Nobody needs to live 4.5 billion years, Thank you. Since you are patently aware of some of the basic calculations involved, I am sure that you are also aware of how we rule out some of the fundamental assumptions, either that or you weren't paying attention in school (not that I believe for a second that you actually studied any of this). So I would suggest that instead of trying to win imaginary fights on KZread, you actually go and consult the innumerable resources available from Nuclear energy education outlets to get the answer you need on how we validate decay/rates and ages for the Earth. It would probably amaze you, but as I am not a professor and I'm certainly not your daddy, I would suggest you grow up and spend the 30 minutes necessary to answer those issues using public education resources. You are not as clever as you think and there are tens thousands of people working in the nuclear energy field who can explain it to you like you’re a child. Good luck

@jbangz2023

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 I am not pretending to know something I am asking you. Name calling doesn't help prove your point, please use science or math. Given a decay rate of 238U at t=0, dN(0)/dt=R, yes we can validate this with different methods at t=0. How about at t=half-life=4.5 billion yrs, can you validate experimentally that its decay rate is R/2? Do you believe that Riemann Hypothesis is true, if you heard about it? The reason I asked you because there are scientific theories accepted true though still unproven.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

Understand something. Various hypotheses and fundamental assumptions do not entail that Creationism becomes true. Just because there are various unsolved issues in science, or that you have to make certain assumptions first and then rule them out. This is a god of the gaps argument akin to the other one you were making about Last Thursdayism, where arguably we all could have poofed into existence with memories and everything last Thursday, being unawares. The POINT is our shared reality that we continually confirm with each other, and this gives us indications that things are the way they are due to the progression of time and certain interactions that are consistent at certain levels. You and I both interact with the world in this way, when we use computers, cell phones, drive our cars, etc. We are using and relying upon machinery that even operate upon certain unsolved scientific issues, because the pattern of their operation is consistent, even if we don't quite know why they happen. Like Nuclear Power and radioactive decay, where atomic bombs and reactors rely upon consistent decay rates and even the ages of those materials and their half lives, etc. So it doesn't matter if we don't know all the answers. The point is what they DO and tell us. Without evidence for Creationism, direct evidence, you have no argument. This is why Creationism has no testable hypothesis at all, it's why Intelligent Design arguments have no testable hypothesis, UNLIKE scientific theories and hypotheses for the age of the Earth and so on. The 'Riemann Hypothesis, now that you're just throwing out random things for no apparent reason, is called such for a reason. I just want you to be aware of that. It is purely an idea at this point to begin with, so it's not some operative unsolved mystery of the universe. There are however a TON of unsolved issues in science, in nature, and so on. I still cannot figure out why my wife likes to pile stuff into various odd corners of the house but insists that countertops must be absolutely clean. It's a mystery. It doesn't mean Creationism is 'ergo true'. Additionally, I don't appreciate you just googling random stuff to concoct arguments. Think harder before you speak. And I will name call you as I see fit. You have no argument, I have plenty of them, AND I'm also going to berate you for not having an argument. I have zero problems with being abusive towards someone who is being lazy, ignorant, and wasting my time. My college professors wouldn't have stood for such a thing, nor will I.

With respect to dating craters, we have both relative dating methods and absolute dating methods. Again, disingenuous. (Plus, Lisle should provide evidence for his claims. What evidence shows that the Chicxulub crater is not an impact crater?)

@suppppz8996

3 жыл бұрын

1948 is Biblical. Abraham was born in 1948 am. GOD Foreshadowed 1948 when HE Revived us! 1967 there was a blood moon and blood moons and solar eclipses are Biblical!!!!!!! 1967 we won on the 7th day in a 6 day war verses multiple enemies, All Glory to GOD!!!!!!! HE Made us win on the 7th day just like in The Bible!!!!!!! Like in the battle of Jericho!!!!!!! Blood moon on 1967 first day of Passover, and feast of Tabernacle and then same thing following year!

@donniev8181

2 жыл бұрын

Every law that governs our universe has been in place and operating unchanged long before mankind discovered them. You will stand before the God who put those laws in place and will be without excuse.

@davidgardner863

Жыл бұрын

@@suppppz8996, Speaking of Jericho, its roots go back 11,000 years, a bit before the biblical creation.

Couldn't you have two synchronized clocks and send them off into two different locations out in space, have one clock system send light beam to the other, then bring clocks back home and read them 🤔

@davidbutler1857

10 ай бұрын

No, because there's no way to keep them in the same gravitational spacetime position, and inevitably that will affect the clocks' synchronicity. Basically one of the clocks will be subject to different curvature of spacetime and thus will see time pass slower or faster for it relative to the other clock, even if they are both traveling at the same speed out and back. Interestingly enough, 'light' doesn't work that way. As far as the photons are concerned, they left and arrived at the same time...because they are traveling at the speed of light, even if to an observer, the light 'leaves' the light source hours or millions of years ago.

@MazePage

10 ай бұрын

@davidbutler1857 Each clock sends a beam to the other, bring them back, compare the differences???

@davidbutler1857

10 ай бұрын

@@MazePage Then you defeat the point of the test.

@MazePage

10 ай бұрын

@davidbutler1857 Are you sure? I was meaning that you do two one-way experiments at the same time. If you found two equal locations in space with same gravity pressures(?) and moved the clocks into their positions at the same speed, the light measurements should be exactly the same... No? 🤔

@MazePage

10 ай бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 It's definitely a good mental exercise, regardless 😜

As far as distant starlight: time is not really linear, is it? It is 3 dimensional and abstract. The linear concept is necessary for finite creatures to make sense of their world. Atheists claim there is no God, because they can't see him. But you can't "see" time, space, gravity, or the wind; Just the evidence of it!

Skip to 6:17

@C4CApologetics

2 жыл бұрын

Lol

No where in the Bible does it say nothing died before "The Fall"

He says we can't observe the past and yet that is absolutely exactly what we do when we look at the universe through telescopes we are literally observing the past. Even into the billions of years. We see things happen millions and billions of years ago because the light is just reaching us now. We do it every single second of every day with our own sun. The light from the Sun when we see it is already 8 to 9 minutes old. What we observe in space and the long ages it represents is one of the reasons I am a Biblical old Earth creationist. The old Earth creation view is a valid biblical interpretation and is found to reflect created reality much better

@PortmanRd

11 ай бұрын

"If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science then they are mere superstitions and imaginations" Abdu'l Baha Philosopher

@letscatchthemall6862

6 ай бұрын

No that’s what you get TOLD! JWT proved that theory wrong and Dr Lisle predicted everything what we would see and what secularist will say when their theory is debunked I admire your faith if you think a human eye and a telescope is a Time Machine that see in the past 🤭 Just think about it for a minute Your eyeball a Time Machine

Earth magnetic field flip. When check sea floor magnetic field flips more often than once. And when he say it flip deeper in earth crust then it flip multiple times. How that happened in 6000 yr? Several mag flips in a few thousand yrs would/could/ most likely wipe all things out except in deep caves. And that’s maybe. And if all craters happen in a few thousand yr then heat up atmosphere and with mag flips. All life gone. All the his stuff happens over long long time makes more sense cause of damage each does independent of the other. If all happened in a few thousand yr then think that thru. And do research on all this. It’s not hard. It’s really easy.

is sad that he is down on science. It is scientifically quite possible to date rocks. It is possible to test fingerprints conclusively, even if you were not there yesterday when they were made. These objections are silly. In order to 'come to' his YEC presupposition, it is necessary to undermine the evidence.

@Nox-mb7iu

6 ай бұрын

Just out of curiosity, do you presuppose the stability of the laws of physics?

Main Topic/Question begins on 26:05. Without hearing the answers yet, I'm inclined to expect Lisle basically saying, "these craters aren't that old" or "no one truly knows how old they are." As a YECist myself, I don't appreciate those kind of answers... It's hard to explain away the impact of craters. It almost seems like plenty of time would be required, which makes it difficult to maintain the 6000 year theory. Personally, I think the harder part of this question for the YECist is this idea that God, who is attributed as "the Truth," would create a planet with the appearance of a history it never experienced. It would be like creating Adam with scars on his first day on earth. So, for the Christian who holds to a young earth with the appearance of being old, the bigger question has to do with theology proper in my opinion. My view of Genesis (framework) does not hinge upon young or old earth theory, thankfully. But this is still a fascinating and edifying discussion.

@C4CApologetics

Жыл бұрын

Good insights. I believe many of the craters are misidentified while some are results of impact from the Flood. 🙂

@davidbutler1857

Жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics ///I believe many of the craters are misidentified while some are results of impact from the Flood./// There is no support for any of this, and just vaguely stating that some or many are misidentified and that some might be from the 'flood' is the sort of loose talk that is intended to avoid responsibility for supporting one's claims. Let's see the support you have.

@vhawk1951kl

3 ай бұрын

what exactly is the magic in the jewbook that the loons call bible? why is that book so special/magic? If the jewbook is that authoritative why not become a judaist/Jew?- we wrote the fcuking thing, or our rabbis did. If it is that magic why not become a judist?Is it not the logical thing to doo since genesis was written by Jews and is book one of the Torah, which is a jewbook. Follow the logic little loons.

@rogerphelps9939

16 күн бұрын

hatt is because YEC flies in the face of all of the evidence and is complete bollocks.

About 20:00 Good answer to that question. Here is another answer. God didn't create ex nihilo. It never says that in The Bible. Bara means to create with existing matter or to shape matter. Genesis 1 is about God making this world and solar system for us, not every star in the whole universe. Those stars far away are really as old as the light distance makes it seem. And the earth was formed for us thousands of years ago.

32:00 Okay this is kinda funny, because when you ask him this question, you're actually affirming that you're aware of the pole reversal, which is not what he likely planned on you knowing about, given his earlier answer, so here he is actually being forced to give you a straight answer about how this works to explain why we haven't all been irradiated to death. But let's see where he goes with this. Ah, but then he kinda diverges from his own knowledge of this, and starts talking about plate tectonics, when it's really the dynamo of the Earth's core (the iron in it) that causes the shift. Interestingly, at 33:00 he starts talking about subduction and the age of the Ocean floor (most of it is less than 100 million years old) but he FAILS to mention that this is where we see magnetic striping from magnetic field changes because it leaves evidence of this, so we can also tell the age of the crust in these spots based on this striping. Hilariously, he now mentions the magnetic striping! But then he just wildly inserts that 'it must've happened rapidly'... uh, no. The crust moves pretty slowly, hence why we actually call it 'striping'. It's almost like a heartbeat readout on the crust as it moves. The magnetic changes can happen fast, but the crust records them as they move slowly. And then he just lies about how fast it happens, not taking into account the volcanic activity/heat that locks these in as the plates shift. He's just like, lol, making it up.

@alheeley

3 жыл бұрын

It may happen 'rapidly' in geological terms - this is where a lot of new crust is lad down, but those timescales are so totally misunderstood by the laymen as well as Dr Lisle from the BS institute.

@jamesprince1609

3 жыл бұрын

You are evidently a troll. But you are going by your model of uniformitarianism. That is a philosophical assumption. We assume a biblical time frame, a catastrophic global flood, rapid tectonics, rapid subduction in the past, not the current slow gradual processes. To us your uniformitarian assumptions are the lie.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesprince1609 I am not 'trolling' as this is a public comments section and I am making replies to portions of the video. "Trolling' is not a word for simply seeing comments that you don't like. 'Uniformitarianism' is an outdated concept that gave way to 'actualism', even though the word 'uniformitarianism' is still widely employed. Actualism essentially means that the physical laws of nature do not change, even if rates of things (like sedimentation or frequency of events) might vary. These physical laws are directly observed to be unchanging, hence, it is the basis for ALL modern scientific understandings.

@jamesprince1609

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 I mean you are coming on the channel and poking fun at the Creationist PHD. You would be upset if I dud this to a Evolutionist PhD as you consider him an authority. I will tell you whom I consider an authority unimpeachable. God. The question of authority always us the same. Word of man. Word of God. Period.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesprince1609 LOL, that's just the thing. Jason Lisle is a PhD in Astrophysics, a subject that he rarely talks about much. Instead, he is often seen talking about Evolution, Geology, or Biology subjects...areas he is NOT educated in. When you get a PhD, you are attaining a 'very' narrowly focused area of study, and that usually entails studying little else. So yeah, it's something of a BIG problem when I see Lisle talking outside of his wheelhouse. That said, craters are 'somewhat' in the area of Astronomy (Planetary Geology) so he'd know a little bit about that area from his introductory Astronomy days (everyone studies moon craters and understands things about meteors, just as I did when I was originally studying that field), but given that he just outright LIES even about this stuff (see my other comments), we can dispense with him. Most everything he says about craters in this video can be (and I showed) checked rather swiftly with a few minutes of googling and be shown to be just 'wrong' and total lies. He simply knows his interviewer doesn't know much about the subject, so he can say whatever he wants. He's a con. Assuredly, if an EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST was talking about Evolution, yes, both of us should listen to that person. But Lisle is most certainly NOT an Evolutionary Biologist. Your Bible was written by human beings. I mean, it's 'fun' to believe it's some sort of mythological message from a deity in a 'Clash of the Titans' sorta way, but come on, you're a grown adult...check the publishing information in your Bible to validate what I'm saying. It was written by humans, and the Bible is a collection of cultural religious narratives. That's all. Grow up. FYI, if they don't like comments, they are free to turn them off like a lot of creationists tend to do, because they don't want to be criticized.

I used to mix in the other "theories" because of the distant starlight. Once I heard Jason Lisle's ASC theory, it blew my mind. I now am 100% a young earth/universe believer. Praise God for Dr Lisle and his ministry.

@Kenneth-ts7bp

Жыл бұрын

Science has nothing to do with the Bible. You either believe it or you don't.

@davidgardner863

11 ай бұрын

You should get some help for your blown mind.

@klouis1886

11 ай бұрын

Almost nothing he says is true. He lies a lot

@Night_Crew_Artist

11 ай бұрын

@klouis1886 that's an odd claim. I've seen a lot of his material, and it makes sense and is logical. What do you believe is a lie?

@klouis1886

11 ай бұрын

​@Zathrandar It is all just opinion and he offers no supporting evidence. Almost everything he says has been disproven. If you add the supernatural it is no longer science

Every law that governs our universe has been in place and operating unchanged long before mankind discovered them. Everyone on earth will stand before the God who put those laws into motion. Its your choice as to how that meeting goes.

@davidbutler1857

2 жыл бұрын

Fun assumption. Where is the evidence?

@donniev8181

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 do you understand how ridiculously stupid that question is. It is all around you!

@davidbutler1857

2 жыл бұрын

@@donniev8181 What is? Be specific, and indicate your support

@davidbutler1857

2 жыл бұрын

Should I check under the couch?

@donniev8181

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 better yet, jump off of your couch head first and let the law of gravity slam you to the ground.

From where does the loon get the 6,000 years figure which is+/- what? *Why* 6,000 years and not ten minutes or a six months? From where to these loons pluck such absurd figures and *why*?

6,000 years old? ..yeah, right!

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28 KJV Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 KJV Jesus loves you repent You're a sinner in need of a Savior That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 KJV

37:20 this just goes to my earlier point about craters on the Earth and Io. The Earth has active plate tectonics, unlike most other bodies in the solar system, and is also has surface water and an atmosphere. It actively erodes craters. The way he just tosses this off, despite the HUGE amount of evidence to this end, with 'well the creationist view says different' is insulting to everyone's intelligence here. We'd have to believe that literally everything we know about the basic science of this stuff is just wrong, simply because it happens to conflict with creationism. And we're just supposed to accept his 'spitballling' science at 38:00 onwards as a better alternative to ALL the studies people have done, all the tests, experimentation, all the accurate predictions, methodologies, all of it, just 'throw it out' because it conflicts with this yammering by Lisle.

15:30 we can and have demonstrated that various rates are consistent, certainly enough to debunk creationist arguments. Various radioactive elements and their istopes for example have half-lives of demonstrable lengths, like the Americium in your typical household smoke detector (240 years), or Tritium in expensive watches or nuclear warheads (it's the stuff that glows on a watch hand without needing a light recharge on the fancy ones, or its used as a booster in nuclear warheads) which has a half life of only 12 years. Thus we can see that radioactive decay rates are consistent in terms of the physics involved, regardless of their respective ages or half lives. Isochron dating or fission track dating corroborate these, along with a few other methods. We've observed in cases like the speed of light, using observations of supernova or emission jets, that the speed of light has been consistent at least for the last few billion years. There's quite a bit more involved here, but that's just the start. True 'uniformitarianism' was abandoned practically before it was ever adopted as a term/definition, when something called 'actualism' (which the modern usage of 'uniformitarianism' really refers to these days) came into play, in which it is realized that various (mostly geologic) events can otherwise impact 'some' of the steady rates of change in the Earth, much like the KPG impact did, but in general due to simple things like gravity, tides, or solar cycles, we can see (and predict) those things in the geologic record and quite easily find and analyze things properly according to that principle. So in reality we work according to 'actualism' which is a mixture of occasional catastrophism with old school uniformitarianism.

50:00 this simply isn't true at all. Early naturalists like Darwin and Wallace and so many others, simply liked studying plants, animals, beetles, you name it. In short, they were biology nerds. They were also fairly wealthy, had time to spare, and simply took that time to watch and observe nature. They weren't trying to suppress anything, they in many cases were even somewhat religious people. Some were very religious. The man who formulated the notion of the Big Bang theory for example, was a Priest, Georges Lemaitre. If you worked with me for example, and I'm not even a biologist, but over the span of a few months and some small amount of travel, I could demonstrate to you many of the observations that these early naturalists peformed. All they really were doing was data collection and crunching. They looked at the huge range of Beetle species, they realized that certain animals live in certain places and not all over the world, whereas some were almost all over, like say, the Peregrine Falcon which lives on almost every continent. They looked at dispersal (travel) patterns, they looked at islands and figured out that oceanic and continental islands varied in the numbers of species and types of species that they could support. They saw species almost identical to each other that occupied different niches where they subsisted on different types of food, they saw all these things and simply went where the evidence took them. It has nothing to do, and was never about, trying to suppress 'knowledge of God' or to deny YEC views.

I agree with a young earth. BUT, Romans 5:12 is talking about men dying not animals. God did not create animals immortal.

@jamessherrick3205

6 ай бұрын

See Genesis... Man brought death into the world. Not just death of man ,but death Period... of animals also.

43:20 Hooo boy. Okay look, glaciation and its patterns is a very well studied part of Geology, and we know for a fact that there have been multiple ice ages, because they leave so much glaring evidence because of how they shape landscapes. There are large round boulders up in the North of the US that were literally dropped by retreating glaciers, the main reason parts of the midwest is so numbingly flat is because it was scraped to hell by glaciers. The Great Lakes themselves are the remains of glacial activity. All of these changes spanned tens of thousands to millions of years, depending on where on the globe they impacted. The most recent one began several million years ago and more or less terminated only a few tens of thousands of years ago. These are known as glacial epochs or by similar names. I really hate that Lisle is just brazenly lying to you here. Maybe if you follow-up he'll once again be forced to get specific and answer you straight.

@davidgardner863

Жыл бұрын

Lisle only sounds impressive to the scientifically illiterate but anyone versed in astronomy, cosmology, and geology can easily see numerous flaws in his explanations. With a PhD in astrophysics he has to know this so the only conclusion is that he is being intentionally deceptive.

@davidbutler1857

Жыл бұрын

@@davidgardner863 That's most certainly why he never allows himself in the same room with anyone who knows as much as he does about it. It's also why he only tours at various low-rent churches and other places because he needs his audience to be pretty poorly informed about this stuff.

Someone needs to take Dr. Lisle’s doctorate away. If he’s spreading this much misinformation in just this one video, imagine how much damage he’s done over the years. Scary to think about.

Always plural stories represent adam of flesh and blood before spiritual ADAM wakes up, this happens in man who came down like Jesus who was spiritual pattern going on in the womb birth that is male and female, the wake of spiritual man happens in the temple skull

God throws rocks at sinners! There,everything completely explained.

@ronbusby3335

2 ай бұрын

Seems a LOT more reasonable than believing as the atheists and evolutionist’s do, that we all came from a rock!

30:20 Um, yeah, we have a pretty reliable way to date craters. We can easily look at the stratiagraphic layers that the crater occupies and obtain a minimum age for it, and then from there look at isotope changes in the surface soil to get an idea of how old the surface of the crater is (depends on underlying rock). So we can pretty accurately date most any crater. Lisle is just openly lying about this. And that's just if we don't have any surviving fragments. If we were for example to get the rock that Lisle claims to have from Barringer/Meteor Crater, then assuming it's of a testable size, we could also date that meteor and find that it correlates with the age of the strata/soil of the crater itself. Sortof a double verification. In fact if you read up even the Wikipedia entry about this, you can find direct references to how its age was determined using these methods.

Sorry, we can now take pictures of light in transit. IE we can actually see a beam of light travelling across the lab. Guess what? Of all the times it has been done, light always travels at the expected speed. Also the flow of electricity is, in effect, light, for it also is the flow of an electromagnetic wave. Guess what? Electrical waves travel the same speed in any direction. This is true because antennas work on the expected speed of the electromagnetic wave through them. They would "come out of tune" if the velocity of the waveform changed as you changed the orientation of the antenna. This doesn't happen so the speed of electromagnetic waves doesn't change with direction. Also, if light was infinitely fast travelling towards Earth, why do telescopes work the same if you are on Earth or in space? We have space telescopes at the L2 orbit point which is 1.5 million miles from Earth. They focus just fine in any direction. Of course we have telescopes that have been out to the outer planets and all. They all worked great, no problem with the speed of light changing and messing up their optics. This doesn't mean the Bible is wrong, it means the archaic interpretation of Genesis 1 to a Young Earth is wrong.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah there are indirect ways of measuring the OWS of light anyway so it boils down (once again) to the old creationist trope of 'were you there?' that they use for most anything, except of course, claims about a global flood or creation itself, for which we have no known witnesses (certainly none that authored the Bible, only claimed to have).

Check Dr Humpreys' theory of 6 days of creation

The entire YE creationist movement hinges on the research of a 15th century bishop who calculates the time and date of the creation as around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC. He was a renowned scholar of his time, but hsi information is based on tracing lines of genealogy from the old testament back through time. Scholars already accept that sections of the books making up the old testament are missing, incorrect or amended through 2000 years of copying, translating, etc. as well as the church censoring entire sections, on top of this it was not understood at the time that the original scripts translated from ameraic and ancient babylonian artifacts would have been based on the maths and counting system of that time, which was base 60. Hence I challenge the authenticity of the YEC claim of about 6000 years as it is clearly unsupported in any real scientific evidence based on geology or geochemistry or palaentology of the fossil records over the last 200 years.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

The Creationists account for this by a few different approaches: 1. They just ignore it 2. They are fine with loose timelines ranging from 6,000 years to 10,000 or so. 3. They make it their business to entertain just about any sort of conspiracy theory type notions on the age of the Earth. Various kooks out there posit fairly specific dates, and other propose longer periods. The idea is to never let themselves be nailed down. In their minds, only Evolutionists have to be perfect on this sort of thing. 4. (Amending this list) They also (as Stephen Meyer recently said) "Give Evolutionists a 'pass' " on the age of the Earth. The reasoning here is that they've got bigger fish to fry than to bother debating the Earth's age, because they'd rather first assert that Creationism is true and then work their way towards addressing the age question later. As Napoleon once said about the approaching Prussians at Waterloo "For now, pretend they are on the moon" (so that his troops would focus on defeating the British).

@GrahameGould

3 жыл бұрын

Absolute balderdash. "YE" was believed for all human history by those who believed God, and by nearly all Europe for about 1000 years until the 1700s. Ussher was the foremost scholar of his day. Very few creationists agree with everything he says, but he gave very solid reasons. Some of those reasons have been overturned by further discoveries, but he was not alone in calculating a date like that. Isaac Newton also came within years of that date. And many, many others.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrahameGould ///Absolute balderdash. "YE" was believed for all human history by those who believed God, and by nearly all Europe for about 1000 years until the 1700s./// Actually quite a few parts of the world believed it was eternal. The idea of a recently created Earth is somewhat new in terms of religious beliefs. Creationists have a real problem in their lack of willingness to recognize that other cultures have their own histories going back much further than YECs even acknowledge the world existing for. ////Ussher was the foremost scholar of his day. Very few creationists agree with everything he says, but he gave very solid reasons. Some of those reasons have been overturned by further discoveries, but he was not alone in calculating a date like that. Isaac Newton also came within years of that date. And many, many others./// Yes, this is typical when you attempt to reconcile the Bible's information. It becomes an entirely different problem altogether when you start looking at actual evidence in nature. People quickly realized that the Bible's chronology didn't sit well with observations from nature. So, they stopped trying to find answers to a lot of things that way. Because quite frankly, the Bible just doesn't directly or indirectly address a lot of things, as Galileo famously noted. I'm sure you can agree with this approach, so at your heart, even as a Young Earth Creationist, you must and DO realize that the YEC interpretation of the Earth's age is purely mythological, not practical. That's all anyone is after, is the practical. They want to understand how the geology and the patterns of the planet sit with the properties of elements, of matter itself, gravity, heat, cold, atmosphere, glaciers, etc etc etc. The Bible answers NONE of these questions, and raises too many instead by its silence on the subject. So, people went looking. I'm sure as a good upstanding person who no doubt ulitizes and certainly BENEFITS from these sciences (Nuclear power as a result of our studies of geology and the elements powers your home), you can recognize these things as nothing more than good faith investigations of nature.

@alheeley

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrahameGould Newton was a great mathematician but he was swayed by religious thinking, and he was not a chemist or geologist. To cling to the belief that the earth is still only 6000 yrs old in face of todays overwhelming evidence is absurd in the extreme.

@GrahameGould

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 thanks for again proving you are a moron who can't read or can't think. I said those who believed God!

Spiritual death is a misunderstanding. A spirit is eternal and cannot die. Being dead is therefore the absence of spirit. This is why the Bible says cast both body and soul in hell. Your soul is bound to your body, until you are born again, then your soul is bound to the spirit. At the resurrection you’ll get a new body. People will be in hell because they are NOT born again, and this birth is spiritual. They didn’t have a spirit until they were born of the spirit.

30:50 What I really hate here is how Lisle is sorta leading you on. As someone who would have studied radioactivity fairly extensively in pursuit of his PhD, he'd know full well that he's just letting you trip yourself up about 'uniformitarianism' and decay rates. Worse, he just outright LIES about the age estimates for Barringer crater. There's a fairly comprehensive analysis/dating of the Barringer crater found here (its a viewer of the paper): zenodo.org/record/1253888#.X-KZB9hKiUk where it mentions several methods that corroborate each other, with a final estimate of around 49,000 years, and noticeably, Lisle, probably being well aware of this, just says 'well that contradicts the flood so to hell with that'. This more or less amounts to his approach with everything.

@masada2828

Жыл бұрын

That’s right! If mankind goes back 6000 years but the earth itself is older than that.

34:40 Okay but the thing is, C14 calculations aren't what we use to date the Earth. We know how C14 is created in the atmosphere, and there can be fluctuations in bombardment, but of a negligible amount considering their sources are all interstellar. We use C14 dating primarily for organic materials of roughly 50,000 years or less, which to a YEC is daunting enough of a challenge to their ideas, but that's just a tool we use mostly for archaeology, some various analysis of land for conservation reasons, studies of sedimentation, various other things (there's a list of industrial applications for it somewhere I can find you). I get a sense that Lisle is trying to falsly try to conflate C14 dating with all dating methods. That aside, on magnetic field changes, we don't date crust layers or ascertain their magnetic history with C14 dating. The last field reversal occurred IIRC about 1 million years ago, so we couldn't even begin to apply radiocarbon dating to analyze any aspect of it.

I would suggest not using the wrong words when referring to all theories other than yec. They are not all evolutionary. Please don't lead people wrong. Billions of years doesn't automatically mean evolution. It doesn't imply it, require it. biblical old Earth creationists reject evolution possibly even more than young Earth.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

Considering that people who had no real interest/expertise in Biology or Evolution were the ones who were researching the Age of the Earth for other reasons, that would be correct. And, many of them were personally devout theists.

18:49 The 'dust' in our solar system should actually be there because not only is is comprised of particles from system formation and impacts from plantetary bodies, but it's also partially comprised of interstellar dust as our system moves through the galaxy. Also, If for example a meteor hits the Moon, it will scatter billions of particles into space and they will persist there for millennia. Same with Comets that fragment, etc.

@alwilson3204

3 жыл бұрын

And yet the moon is a mystery to old earth astronomers with only a small amount of dust on the surface compared to the huge amount they actually expected by their misguided calculations; how very foolish of the scientific 'elite', don't you agree? In the same way, many of your little biased expositions can be readily answered. Your turn! so answer the nice questions posed below or undertake some useful project that keeps your ignorant stance out of harms way. Maybe study the Mt. St. Helen's disaster and its wrongly dated rocks for a start.

@davidbutler1857

Жыл бұрын

@@alwilson3204 Huh? No, the moon is not a mystery, and you are misrepresenting the moon dust argument. The St. Helens rocks you allude to where intentionally sent by Snelling to the wrong lab on the wrong premise for testing.

14:30 Lisle's actually fundamentally wrong on this point, and he's often stated this. You can make plenty of predictions about the past in terms of finding something that any particular theory predicts, and seeing their expected effects. If for example, you can look at the genome of an animal and compare it to others of its genus, you can phylogenetically map it on the globe by location and 'predict' where in the fossil record its biogeographical ancestors are/were located, following the principles of plate tectonics and geologic/geographical changes they would cause, and then 'find' that predicted fossil in the right location. This was somewhat done with the famous Tiktaalik fossil discovery, but plenty of others and is a general practice in Biogeography/Paloeobiogeography today, especially when genomics studies are used. Similar types of predictions about the past in almost every field of science can make such predictions about the past to 'very' high confidence levels and demonstrate even the causal elements. Lisle's argument amounts to arguing heavily that a statistical outlier means that you can never be entirely sure. He tosses off all the high confidence analyses and evidence as 'guesses'. Which is a bit funny coming from someone like him who relied almost entirely on such statistical analysis to obtain his PhD. Anyone arguing what Lisle is doing is really counting on the fact that your viewers and his fans haven't taken a basic statistical analysis course. He knows most people haven't, and that's why he's on KZread and not a practicing academic.

@jbangz2023

3 жыл бұрын

Predicting the past? Or assuming the past, anyway if you can predict the past how do you prove that it really happened? Have you tried least squares prediction? Do you think the error is zero?

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jbangz2023 Technically you can’t prove you existed 5 seconds ago. But the overall point is that we appear to have a shared reality in which we not only perceive the past as an experience but that the world we interact with shows a consistency that’s even agreeable between different people, meaning either our senses are interconnected (not likely) or it is the universe that is, delivering this input to us. Since it appears to be the latter, we can therefore make predictions about the past (or someone else’s past) and generally be correct. For example you could make current observations of a persons actions (let’s say their buying habits) and then make a prediction about what they’ve bought before you started, then ask them what they really did and chances are (if you gather enough data) you might be right, or correct within a range of error. Least squares is something you do when you’re more or less done and you want to refine

@obiecanobie919

3 жыл бұрын

You can easily trick yourself that you know a lot and arrive to wrong conclusions because you only scratch the surface of your area of expertise ,you predict where things will happen but don't know why ,but know it because it happened before and extrapolate that to anything you prefer .Not understanding the universe as a whole places you at a great disadvantage when making predictions ,as preferable displaces the probable .

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@obiecanobie919 When something is shown to be causal, it eliminates 'wrong conclusions'. Hence we know 'why' things happen because if you remove that element you can see where it doesn't happen. It's a very easy thing to do. But, I suspect you're not really aware of what you're talking about.

6:50 The Oort cloud was theorized in the 1950's because of observations of short/long period comets and their trajectories, indicative of a distant gravitational location from which they are peturbated into falling towards the sun. The fact that long period comets return from this area, like Halley's comet, is indicative of its location. The only reason we cannot 'see' it, but we can infer it, is because the distances between objects at that distance from the Sun is truly massive. Possibly several AU between any particular icy mass, but at such a distance that even this distance between objects (and the relative frequency of objects that arrive from it) suggests a quite huge reservoir of them. There would be nothing to 'see', but you could (and we have) already visited objects like the Kuiper belt that are indicative of the validity of this theory. And so far, all the comets we observe are consistent with Oort's theory. Their speeds/trajectories do NOT indicate extrasolar origins. The Oort cloud could be an accumulation of matter from perhaps even before our Sun's full formation, but in terms of where they come from, orbitally they arrive from a point that surrounds the Sun at a certain range, and they are part of our system. If you ever find anything Lisle tends to ever say on this topic, he is very keen NOT to elaborate much upon it, because if he's tasked to do so in depth, he simply cannot explain YECism. He has to toss off the Oort cloud as quickly as he can because his only goal is to blow it off as a nonsense theory. This is why in your video he just lets you do this for him, while he doesn't say jack squat.

Then God is 6,000 yeas old. Quite young!

@C4CApologetics

2 жыл бұрын

How is that conclusion drawn? Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting (Psalm 41:13)

@PortmanRd

11 ай бұрын

What was he doing before the universe was created? Twiddling his thumbs? 😂

With all due respect, Dr. Lisle is a good scientist and a good Christian. However, I have to say I cannot agree with him on 6 creative days mentioned in Genesis and he should give some benefit of the doubt that each day of those 6 days could be something other than 24 hour day as we know it. Bible says, on the 7th day, God rested. When Jesus Christ was scorned by Jews for doing healing work on Sabbath, he replied to them saying, “My Father is still working, so I am working, too.” John 5:17. Although Jesus did not explicitly mention Sabbath in his reply, he implied it in his reply to justify working on Sabbath. This means we are still living in God's Sabbath. Since it has been over 6000 years from Adam's creation, God's creative Sabbath may be longer than 6000 years and likely to be 7000 years long which follows each creative day may actually be 7000 years long. Therefore, those 6 creative days actually may be 42,000 years long. Also, we should not exclude the possibility that each creative day may even be any length of time that we do not really know. 24 hour day as we know it only existed ever since sun was created on the 4th creative day. However, Genesis uses the term "day" even for 1st through 3rd day. So, how can we definitively say that each of those days are 24 hour day? We cannot. Therefore, we have to allow the possibility that the term "day" may only be a symbolic term to describe a period of time in human terms and there are many such symbolic terms in the bible. So, let's allow some leeway for views of other Christians who may have different ideas on this subject.

It is interesting to ask a creationist how starlight reaches the earth. It is also interesting if you ask an evolutionist how these stars got that far into space. According to an evolutionist they all started in this small dot. You'll find that in the big bang theory the speed of light is far higher than what we assume the standard is today. As such the big bang theory is just a mathematical model that requires some 'adjustments' to make it fit.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

The BBT is pretty well nailed down past a certain and very short time period after the initial expansion. Beyond that, it has great application to everything we see in the cosmos today. Where it breaks down is before/during the Planck epoch, but that's more about our inability to explore that scientifically than anything else. Just lack the technology to. Initial inflation of the universe is a period anyway where 'speed of light' has no real meaning, so not exactly the dealbreaker you think you have. Anyway, asking how stars 'got that far into space' is the same as asking why our Sun is where it is in the universe. And no, it didn't all start with a 'small dot'. There is a presumed 'singularity' but, no, not a small dot.

@jackthisout9480

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 "speed of light has no real meaning", and "we can't explain that yet". That is complete nonsense, to use some scientific language. And then the presumed 'singularity', which is also just scientifically unprovable. The big question has always been how far starlight has reached the earth, and you make the comparison with our sun? What a silly thing to say; you completely (and intentionally) misrepresent what I said. Our sun does not take a billion lightyears to reach us with its sunrays. You know very well what the problem is. To place stars (which have a very large mass) billions of lightyears away, all that mass has to get there, doesn't it?. That is a much bigger problem than the light that travels at light speed. If you claim that 'speed of light' has no real meaning, then there is no problem for a creationist either, is there?

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jackthisout9480 ///"speed of light has no real meaning", and "we can't explain that yet". That is complete nonsense, to use some scientific language. And then the presumed 'singularity', which is also just scientifically unprovable./// Well, no it isn't complete nonsense. For example, there can be objects out there today that are moving a significant fraction of the speed of light, but relative to each other, they might actually be exceeding it. But since we are talking about the inflationary period of the early universe, trying to say what can move faster or slower than the speed of light is immaterial, and no, that doesn't cause a problem for me, it's actually a huge problem for creationists, since what we are seeing in the heavens right now is NOT from an inflationary period. As for the singularity, that is a prediction of gravitational theory, not 'a small dot' as you claimed. Objects are where they are in space because they ARE moving, but not in the ways creationists would contend. With creationists, the problem is that we don't see signs of a young universe. We see an old one. The reasons for that involve everything from the observed ages of various stars and objects in the universe (seeing as we know their composition, life stages, etc) but also observations of the Hubble constant, etc. At bare minimum, as is often stated, since we know the minimal ages of many things in the universe, the universe itself MUST be that old. We know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old because of what we know from nucleosynthesis. We know the Sun is about 4.6 because of its composition and how it produces energy (two lines of evidence supporting both Sun and Earth have similar ages), along with a host of other sources. So it doesn't matter what your god-magicky claims about how far things appear to be (or he lied to make them look that way), we already know the Earth has been here a long time, and so has our Sun, so with that in mind, we can swiftly dismiss silly notions that God was playing tricks on us with how light behaves.

@jackthisout9480

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 'But relatively speeking they might actually exceed it'. Please stop with the bold assertions, as they don't mean anything in the scientific sense. They are nothing more than speculation, really nothing more. Tell me how did the stars end of 4 billion light years away from the earth, or for that matter how did they end up 4 billion light years away from whatever reference point. A human made term like inflationary period is not an argument for a star to get 4 billion light years away from us, it only serves a purpose for you not to provide a solid scientific reason. Don't hide behind the fiction of inflation; tell me how the stars got there. Or is bending all the rules of nature just a way of saying: we don't know? The next fallacy is now that you project this pseudo science (what supposedly happened after the inflationary period) onto a completely different theory, which is like using Chinese grammer to check a French sentence. It's not even a small dot, it is just a mathematical singularity; this pseudo science says 'nothing' exploded. Tell me: where did all this energy come from and where does all the matter come from? I guess the answer goes like this: the mathematical singularity! I mock this position, because it is mind boggling how silly it is to even imagine that everything comes from nothing, but it is explained by a theory that is unprovable. That is what they teach at school these days; it is just absurd. Can you explain C-14 in diamonds and dinosaur bones? Have fun with that one!

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jackthisout9480 ///'But relatively speeking they might actually exceed it'. Please stop with the bold assertions, as they don't mean anything in the scientific sense. They are nothing more than speculation, really nothing more./// Uh, considering that closing speed is a well known thing, you would be very wrong. If I am going 40mph on a highway, and you are going 40mph, our closing speed is 80mph. Hence, two objects moving near to the speed of light can be moving relative to each other, at greater than the speed of light. This is partly why various emission jets seen emerging from galactic cores can be seen to be moving at speeds of some fraction of the speed of light. ////Tell me how did the stars end of 4 billion light years away from the earth, or for that matter how did they end up 4 billion light years away from whatever reference point./// There is no 'center' to the universe. Asking why something is 4 billion light years away from us, you might as well ask why we are 4 billion light years from it. Space expanded, it continues to expand, everything in the universe is moving away from each other, and as above, in some observed cases, at speeds greater than the speed of light. Not because they are moving within the universe, but because the universe itself is expanding. We can directly observe this. ///A human made term like inflationary period is not an argument for a star to get 4 billion light years away from us, it only serves a purpose for you not to provide a solid scientific reason. Don't hide behind the fiction of inflation; tell me how the stars got there. Or is bending all the rules of nature just a way of saying: we don't know?/// Again, since we see and know that space is expanding, we know this for a fact. ///It's not even a small dot, it is just a mathematical singularity; this pseudo science says 'nothing' exploded. //// Incorrect. Stop reading whatever memes or cheap creationist pamphlets you have at your disposal, and spend just 5 minutes even reading the Wikipedia entries about this stuff. You are being lazy and stupid. ///Tell me: where did all this energy come from and where does all the matter come from? I guess the answer goes like this: the mathematical singularity! I mock this position, because it is mind boggling how silly it is to even imagine that everything comes from nothing, but it is explained by a theory that is unprovable. That is what they teach at school these days; it is just absurd./// That's the big question, we don't actually know where it comes from. All we DO know is that gravitational theory and models tell us that the universe was formerly in some highly energetic but dense state up until a certain point. We don't actually know if there was a 'nothing' before. There are a number of models out there that postulate that our universe is everything from eternal and just going through a cycle, or it may be one of many stages of some state. We don't have the technology yet to address this. I am fine with this, because there's plenty out there we don't know. ///Can you explain C-14 in diamonds and dinosaur bones? Have fun with that one!// Yes, I can. Carbon is a highly abundant element in the Earth, and naturally, diamonds are too (they are in lots of places in the Earth, more 'rare' due to the diamond industry hoarding them than because they are actually hard to find), but anyway, another abundant element is Uranium. You even have tiny traces of it in your body/bloodstream, but in harmless amounts. However, in the Earth, and in certain areas, Uranium exists in such a dispersed manner as to create a sort of background radiation in places, and the active particles from it bombard things like Diamonds or other objects, and can/do create C14 in a similar manner as to how cosmic rays create C14 in the atmosphere. These are trace amounts mind you, but quite common. As for Dinosaur bones, MOST fossils we tend to find are surface eroded, meaning that they are just under a few feet of soil or have become visible due to part of a hillside eroding, etc...and as a result, because they are porous as are most rocks, little microorganisms invade them rather swiftly, since inevitably they are exposed to water which is always rich with them, and hence, any dinosaur bone is likely to have small amounts of bacteria living inside them. So naturally because these organisms breathe air just like anything else does, they intake C14 quite readily, and of course, very recently, so if you were to perform radiocarbon dating on a bone, you WILL find some small amounts of C14 in them, despite the bones themselves being encased in rock that is tens of millions of years old. I can provide several academic citations for each of these points if you so desire.

They don’t Stop believing in nonsense

0:55 Okay, mentioning a fellow creationist (Hugh Ross) as someone Lisle is brave enough to 'engage with' is kinda silly, because Hugh Ross is a bit of a pseudoscientist himself, and doesn't disagree with a lot of the basic contentions of YECism.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I understand your point. Hugh Ross is not a true creationist, as you point out. I merely give Jason credit for debating one who is very well esteemed by a lot of people within Christianity while he promotes contrary thoughts to creationism and YEC (as you mention). It's more of a statement to give him props for backing his credentials up by debating a well known Christian so that the viewers can see he isn't just all talk; he's able to defend his position, logicially, academically, and Scripturally. It's the same with WLC, he's great with philosophical ideas of God but fails at creationism. If someone has the ability to debate him, and hold his own, it adds validity to the person debating him showing that he truly knows what he believes and why (i.e. a Berean). Hope that makes sense. 🙂

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics WLC plays both sides of Creationism. He's careful not to heavily offend YECs but personally he sides more with OEC views of course.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for all your replies and critiques. I mean thay honestly. They add to the discussion and provide fine counter-points to arguments. By any chance, are you a Christian?

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics Nope. I used to be though. Into my teen years. I was a fair bit skeptical as a kid about all the mythology of creationism, but accepted it since that's what I was being taught at church (parents didn't reinforce it much), but eventually I found it all a bit silly and I could tell most adults didn't buy into it. They were just doing the rounds as it were by going to church, more tradition than anything else. But anyway, I lost interest outside of the fun offered by youth group activities and simply lived life. It wasn't actually until college where I was doing research on the historicity of King Arthur legends for a class, when I got interested in the research part of it and (because Jesus is associated with the Arthur myths) and dove into the historicity of Jesus. I was a fair bit astounded upon learning that the Gospels were more anonymous than I was led to believe, that Jesus himself never wrote anything, that the things he said are merely attributed (yes, you picked up on this in church but very weakly), and that in fact there was very little to say the guy existed at all. I took that in stride, but became fairly interested in historicity of the Bible in general, and after reading a fair bit of papers on the subject, and reading a lot of apologetics to see if there were good answers, I discovered that the entire religion and especially modern apologetics, is a huge sham. People today have taken what was originally an earnest faith of that time period (predicated mostly on ignorance which wasn't their fault), and turned it into a corporate game where people (like Lisle) are in it for the money and power that the work gives them, rather than because they necessarily believe the stuff, and if they do, it's often because their education in this modern technological age has been so stunted that they don't know the first thing about some of the basic sciences. But even after this, I don't think I considered myself an 'atheist' until some years later. I was agnostic for a long time after the above. I can still say I'm agnostic on the general notion of some sort of deity type thing existing, but in terms of the God of Christianity, I'm a complete atheist. We know for a fact that at least this version of a deity is just an invention of mankind (ogranic if you will) derived over time from ancient tribal beliefs. People may disagree on the how/why on small details, but I don't waste time on debating that sort of thing. Anyone who tries to advance this claim has no support.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics Btw I do want to also thank you for keeping comments open and not deleting anything. This isn't the norm on most channels. It's a pretty common thing for people like myself to get banned, have our comments deleted, or be asked to watch a video where commenting is disabled, and that's because the other side doesn't want to hear/see what we have to say about people like Lisle or the things they say. I know it's a model with some apologists, but if all you ever do is 'sell' and you never accept feedback on your product, god or whatever, then you're going to end up in a situation where you start believing your own notions to be infallible. I think that's a trap Lisle has found himself in by curtailing the feedback he gets to this sorta thing.

I was talking to God the other day and he said that he had so much going on in that first week that he forgot to mention Craters and their origins when he wrote Genesis. He said that the scientists got it right with them being impact in origin. He was also pretty pissed off that some stupid fools take everything that he says literally. He did not know about these two bozos but we had a good laugh when we watched this together. His exact words were 'this guy is eithe very stupid or he is lying' he rated the video zero out of 10.

17:12 Um, the Earth's magnetic field is not 'decaying', it is moving. It shifts quite regularly.

@jbangz2023

3 жыл бұрын

Hi David Butler, it's hard to scroll down so I wrote a new comment. Could you show us mathematically how the half-life(T/2)=4.5x10^9 yrs of 238 Uranium obtained? Then let's investigate each line of calculation. I have one question, the decay rate(dN(t)/dt = λN(t)) and λ-> decay constant. At t=0, dN(0)/dt = λN(0) obtained experimentally as decays per unit time(Bq or curie), at t=half-life=T/2, can you or any physicist prove experimentally that dN(T/2)/dt = λN(T/2) = 0.5dN(0)/dt ? .

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jbangz2023 I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment. There are plenty of resources out there on how this works and how your question is/was determined. I would imagine since you have already obtained some of the calculation information, you are aware of these. I would suggest that you not look towards people on KZread comments for these answers, as I am certainly not interested in cobbling together all of that information for you, and there is no brief answer to your query. This is a homework/research question. Good luck.

17:05 Yeah, what Lisle fails to mention here is that because fossils are found in Sediment, which is often surface-eroded (basically the fossils are found in dirt/rock near the surface), meaning that bacteria and other microorganisms frequently invade the fossils, so if you try to carbon date a fossil (which you shouldn't for this reason) you will obtain a relatively recent C14 age. It means that your sample is essentially contaminated with dirt filled with the remains of bacteria and small bugs and plants. This is true for anyplace on the planet, including deserts like fossil beds in Montana. The soil/sediment where those fossils are found are riddled with bacteria that percolate a fair bit into the ground. If you are skipping around Hell Creek for example, and you find a tooth, chances are if you ground it up and radiocarbon dated it, you'd get a fairly recent reading because some microorganisms have made it a home. There are some actual ways to direct-date fossils using leached radioactive elements that have taken place during fossilization, but no, you don't ever carbon date a fossil unless you are actually looking at a fairly recent one in terms of its stratiagraphic layer and there's as likely some still active organic remains in it from the original animal. You might pull that off with something from the Pleistocene for example.

@mugdiller2124

3 жыл бұрын

I would be interested in your thoughts re: Dr. Mary Schweitzer, et al, finding endogenous protein as well as "robust evidence" of DNA remnants in T-Rex bones. She found collagen which eliminates contamination as a source, as collagen is not found in any of the usual non-vertebrate exogenous materials like bio-film.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@mugdiller2124 Collagen can preserve. There’s no mystery about it. The remains that Schweitzer and many others have found are all located inside mineralized (fossilized) bones where (in order to even analyze them) the bones had to be removed from the surrounding rock, then subjected to acid bath treatments to remove the remaining material while (attempting to) preserve most of the original bone. These aren’t freshly decayed remains from a few thousand years ago. Also DNA decays, and while fragments can preserve because of what it is composed of, an entire DNA sequence cannot because of how that is all held together. All of this information is available out there, and if you search around the professional literature there’s several good overviews of these analyses

@mugdiller2124

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 Yes, I have read the literature and no where does it claim collagen can preserve for any where near millions of years - and certainly not in situ. Schweitzer, Horner, and others are attempting to discover the preservation mechanisms that would allow original soft tissue and DNA remnants to last 70 million years. They experimented with iron as a preservative, but that did not demonstrate the capacity for millions of years of preservation - so they're still looking. Seems to me there is a choice here: Trust the decay rate of radioisotopes, or trust the decay rate of protein. Radiometric dating is based on assumptions of conditions millions of years ago - protein decay is something that can be observed in real time. My bet is the dino tissue is thousands of years old.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@mugdiller2124 The answer resides in biochemistry which is know with respect to collagen. Essentially the structural elements can decay and then reform as long as they are held in the same space, which they do because of the matrix the bone resides in. You're also lumping the blood cell structure analysis in with the collagen one, probably because you've only given any of this content a cursory read. Your problem is additionally compounded by lumping radiometric dating with the decay of and mineralization of their bones (fossilization), which has nothing to do with it at all, not even on a technical/field level. Radiometric dating simply helps to date the strata a bone is found in, often indirectly using other layers high in metal content, and it is typically only consulted as a range from existing geologic surveys, typically used to prospect for oil/minerals. It's actually pretty rare for a team to have the need to 'date' a dinosaur find after the fact. They usually already know the age of the stratigraphic layers they are searching. As I've mentioned here already, we are dealing with fossilized bones, not recently dead remains. Your 'bet' is ridiculously stupid because you don't have any idea what you are talking about. As evidenced by the fact that if the remains were only a few thousand years old, they would not yet even be fossilized in any respect (no, it doesn't happen that fast) and we'd also have wholly intact structures including fully intact strands of DNA, and not just a few fragments of material that have to be treated with acids to even access inside the FOSSILIZED BONE. Not to mention all the associated problems with the insinuation that the remains of dinosaurs found in areas known to be desert for tens of thousands of years, strangely would have supported not just dinosaurs but all the other fossilized forms we find there, replete with the indicators of their ecosystems being forested regions, coastal plains, and so on. Yes, your answer is likely gonna be 'well the flood covers all these problems', but sadly, it doesn't. You just have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. People like you fire off random nonsense like this because you refuse to read anything about the subject, notably, the very research that Schweitzer and literally hundreds of other researchers have done on this, already covering your claims in both professional papers, but also easily accessed articles and interviews, in which none of your claims wash. Not even with flood waters. All you care about is that these initial discoveries, ( actually, the headlines about them) lend the slightest credence to your claims, so long as you don't read anything more about them beyond the short headlines you see in popular articles meant to jazz up the findings. But noooo, you're so invested in the creationist literature you are accessing that you've not even bothered to read anything else since then. You think dropping a few names from the late 90's and a few choice statements does the trick and then cap it all off with 'floody floody'. I would singularly challenge you to make the effort to support all of your insinuations here with where in the professional literature, that anyone, anywhere, has suggested any of these things are 'young', or even hint at it. I would especially ask you to go an actually read or watch some of Schweitzer's very own interviews on these topics from just the past couple of years, in which you will also not find any such insinuations. You are just making things up as you go with the hopes that the floody floody will save you. Not even Schweitzer, a Christian, agrees with that. In fact she thinks you types are all pretty crazy.

@mugdiller2124

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 “The answer resides in biochemistry which is know with respect to collagen. Essentially the structural elements can decay and then reform as long as they are held in the same space, which they do because of the matrix the bone resides in.” Not sure where you are getting this info. Evolutionary geochemist Jeffery Bada disagrees: “… the cellular material Schweitzer found must be contamination from outside sources. Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body … Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You’ve got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules.” Also, Schweitzer, et al. in Mechanisms of Soft Tissue Preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex say, “Hollow, pliable, and transparent vessel-like structures have been recovered from skeletal elements of multiple fossil vertebrates, including non-avian dinosaurs…” This does not sound like things that have decayed then reformed. “Your problem is additionally compounded by lumping radiometric dating with the decay of and mineralization of their bones (fossilization), which has nothing to do with it at all…” I can understand why you would think this. I was referring to where the argument ultimately ends up (the geological layers) not to the bone itself. (But I do doubt the layer in which the dino tissue was found is millions of years old). I won’t take the time to respond to the rest of what you wrote as it was mostly ad hominem.

Why set such store by the guess of the priests of an obscure Arab tribe, the israelites who if those guesses by those priests are so sacred why are the loons not Jews? If the rabbis that wrote genesis are so authoritative why not adopt their religion? what is so special about the jewbook that the loons call bible ?

44:50 This right here... He's always just throwing out a wide range of things with 'it might've been' and he bases this on nothing but whimsical notions. There's no work behind it, no science to it, it's just fantasies about how chaotic the flood 'must have been'.

@vanmanrick1

3 жыл бұрын

Keep your gibberish to yourself

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@vanmanrick1 You first

35:29 Okay yep, he definitely just lied to you right there, because he knows full well that (for instance) the sole reason plate tectonics happens is because the Earth's core moves in ways not in relation to its rotational orbit. I can't tell if he's just desperate to move on here or failed to even think about what he's saying, but this is where his background education is causing him to want to say the right thing (he correctly identifies the way it happens with the Sun) but then he can't bring himself to also identify that it happens in a fairly similar way with the Earth's core. As for 'recharging' the field, that's not necessary. The field is rather constant, it shifts in strength overall, but as it coalesces into its shape, it can form pretty strong lines (they're all pretty strong) but it just depends on where you are on the planet. Part of the reason why the Northern lights are visible at the poles and and why sometimes they can be visible in lower lattitudes, which isn't always due to solar activity.

Hmm, looks like you've been deleting some of my comments. Really?

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Actually I havent.....busy and haven't been following. All yours shows published.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics My bad, it's a loading issue.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

No problem man. I don't delete comments regardless, unless they're vulgar. God bless you brother! 🙂

@GrahameGould

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics He's not your brother. He's a troll. He's a coward who comes on here as though we are Jason Lisle. I don't understand why he just asserts things instead of showing how he's contacted creationists (including Dr Lisle) with his "superior knowledge" and shown us the response.

Hydroplate theory projectiles cratered everything in our solar system. Because earth was the origin of the projectiles it has the fewest impacts from them. Notice the moon had at one point a great amount of volcanic activity on the near side of the moon but not the far side because the near side was impacted so greatly it created lava. Hydroplate theory seems like a strong bet to explain many geological features.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

There's no evidence of this. In fact, we have no evidence of 'hydroplate projectiles', which are from the creationist perspective, supposed to be some sort of fast moving crustal plates. The Earth is not the origin of any projectiles, other than from any material blasted off from very early impacts during its formation and perhaps some large impactors around that time, at which point ascertaining which is from the primordial Earth versus other debris would be difficult to ascertain. The moon is the result of an impact that essentially broke off a large part of what was the Earth at the time. This is why the moon is tidally locked with the Earth. There were likely many impacts associated with this initial event over subsequent years. Problems with this idea for creationists is that there was no water or life on the surface of the Earth at this point. It was essentially still a volcanic lava ball. So was the moon. If Noah and his ark were anywhere on the surface at this period, they'd have immediately died from lack of oxygen, no water, no food, and of course the raging inferno that the planet was at the time. This was about 4.4 billion years ago.

@byronrhodes1659

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 you can’t apply your view’s assumptions to discredit my view. Strawman. You have to judge my view on its own assumptions.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@byronrhodes1659 I did. There’s no evidence for your claims.

@byronrhodes1659

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 have you read Dr Walt Brown book on the Hydroplate theory? If not you can’t possibly say that there is no evidence. (By the way it’s free online, see link below) On the flip side I went through the secular education all my life getting its “evidence” crammed down my throat and it has come up short and weak as an explanation for the way things came to be in nature. So I can claim that there is no evidence for evolutionary biology or millions of years and other naturalistic explanations for our world because I actually know it’s evidence. Here’s the link, you should probably make yourself more familiar with a theory before you criticize it. www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview.html

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@byronrhodes1659 Yes, there is no evidential basis for hydroplate 'theory'. It's a series of unsupported conclusions drawn mostly, pleas towards logical fallacies, and pseudo bullshit. These sites you get your 'information' from make no attempt to inform you properly about anything regarding basic science, and their terrible formatting and layouts aside, actually anticipate that you'll never check their claims.

58:30 I know you're more or less substituting 'Evolution' as a word for 'secular science', but it's important to point out (because both of you have used Evolution this way in previous statements) that Evolution deals strictly with the how/why of Biological diversity of life. It has nothing to do with mathematics, fractals, space, or anything.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I am curious as the the naturalist explanation of perfect, consistent symmetry in fractals. What are your thoughts? All attempts to explain, granted by non-academic people, fall very short.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics We simply don’t know why anything is the way it is. Don’t fall for Lisles rhetorical trick that, simply because he offers an answer, that it’s a correct one. You can just as easily state that attribution to Odin has great explanatory power for fractals, but the reality here is that we simply don’t know why. Or how. The point is to keep working at finding an answer, not to retreat to ancient mythological explanations because they’re comfortable lies we tell ourselves.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics Keep in mind as well that rabbit holing on amazing things that wow humans is a pretty common thing with creationism. It reminds me of a quote by Alfred Russell Wallace where he essentially states that it’s foolishness to think that beauty in nature is meant for human eyes and further foolish to think that its purpose is simply for viewing/appreciation rather than something else we don’t yet understand. If there’s a god as creationism intends, then it is just as responsible for disorder as it is for symmetry.

@obiecanobie919

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 The shame is that creationists are labeled unscientific while the evolution-abiogenesis crew employ the same methods apparently stolen from the bible ,the world created out of nothing with or without God and life created out of matter or dust as the bible calls it with or without a God . Not much difference ,they both call for faith needed as the underlying science is far from adequate ,we don't yet understand this but in meantime believe this because its true ,its been scientifically proven but not really as we need to do more work on it because we don't know too many things ,how does this makes sense ?

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@obiecanobie919 You seem to be very misled about what cosmologists think about the origins of the universe or the Big Bang. Would you like to go get an education first before commenting further?

The tortured mental gymnastics you have to engage in when you pre-suppose a conclusion (like the earth is 6,000 years old) is ridiculous. How about observing and then experimenting to find out what best explains what we observe? No good scientist presupposes the conclusion ( ie the Bible requires a 6000 year old earth and is scientifically accurate) and then goes around cherry picking data to support that conclusion. If and when that happens, there are other scientists who test and debunk the cherry-pickers conclusions. This discussion belongs in a course on religion, philosophy, or ancient literature. Science class?- no.

@davidbutler1857

8 ай бұрын

You have to know the truth in order to lie effectively. Jason Lisle is a liar. You can catch him in parts of this very interview blustering a bit until he realizes the host knows more than Lisle initially thought he did, after which Lisle backtracks and makes a different lie. Lisle's whole schtick is to make sure he's the smartest person in the room when he's talking about this stuff.

So, Lisle believes in plate tectonics, but it was catastrophic because all of the evidence indicates millions of years.

50:17 This 'divine foot in the door' is an allusion to a review of Carl Sagan's book 'The Demon Haunted world' in which a reviewer (Lewontin) was disagreeing with Sagan about something related to science education. It's a quote mine really, and Lisle using it here is just dishonest.

@GrahameGould

3 жыл бұрын

How is it not relevant? He is going much further than science education. He is talking about the nature of science itself. creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote So you are the one being dishonest. And I know you claim that it's pointless to read anything written by creationists, but that is moronic. That assumes you are right! Yes, Creationists accept the Bible as God's word. And many come to this position because the SCIENCE compels them to come to that conclusion. You are assuming the Bible is not the word of God in order to claim the Bible is not the word of God and that is moronic. But of course! You ARE a moron. As you continually demonstrate.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrahameGould Your source is also a quote mine. Yes, it yanks three paragraphs out of the review in question (yes, it was a review OF Sagan's book), but it's out of context here. Sagan in his book was essentially talking about the fact that it's impossible to examine anything but the natural/material simply because we lack the tools to do anything else. He's not saying it in the context that science rejects the supernatural, he's talking about the fact that you cannot do anything to actually account for it. So you have to proceed as if it doesn't exist, because you have no other way to. If you build a car, and do tests of its engine for reliability, you have no means of accounting for the possibility, however remote, that a God is making it last longer than you designed it for (let's say that by some fluke your engineering was just a bit too good, or perhaps the metallurgists who provided your engine block made it from a better quality steel than they normally give you, but you don't know about it). You immediately have to seek a 'natural' cause because you can't just throw up your hands and declare 'god must've made it run longer'. (You could, but then you might lose your job!) You might give it another go, and see if you can repeat it. And if you can, then you might discern that maybe your testing gear is wrong, or there's something altered in the design of the engine. So you go around and do checks of everything, and maybe you end up discovering that the engine block is of a higher quality metal, and maybe you don't, but the point is, you cannot do anything about the conjecture that a deity intervened. It does absolutely nothing to help you proceed. You cannot act any differently than if nobody had even suggested the notion in the first place. THAT is what Sagan and the reviewer were talking about here. These words sound like easy fodder for Creationists, but the reality is, it's about scientists describing the philosophy behind which science HAS to work. You do have to understand that these gentlemen are not writing these things with the mindset that a Creationist is listening, but they are also not telling any secrets. It's simply some of the wording here that has led you and others to believe there is a conspiracy afoot. They are just being a little whimsical in their language in describing what science does in practice. That's Sagan in a nutshell. He was always like that.

I’m just fascinated by you people. Do you really believe this stuff? I almost don’t believe you when you say you do. I almost think you just want to believe it. You’re talking about demonstrably false things in science. Why put yourself in that position? It’s absurd and really sad to waste minds in this way.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I appreciate your fascination 😁

@GrahameGould

3 жыл бұрын

So all you have is assertion and disbelief, Riccardo? Have you actually investigated the other side to see if it is intellectually susstainable? Did you listen to the video? Do you have specific objections?

@preacherchrischristian

3 жыл бұрын

Whats really sad is Satan's brainwashing of you to embrace oppositions of science falsely so called, you have a religion and refuse to admit it.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

Lisle does lie repeatedly about some very basic things in this video. The biggest one is the contention that the Chixulub crater isn't 'round' or isn't a crater at all. It's so demonstrably false that the only way he's even saying it is if he knows his interviewer doesn't know this himself or is unwilling to question it.

@trirunner2520

3 жыл бұрын

@@GrahameGould I am a Christian, but do believe in an old Earth because everything in science points to that. Do you believe we can see object farther away than 6,000 light years? There are many stars in the sky that are well beyond the 6k ly range. Our nearest neighbor galaxy, Andromeda, is about 2.5 million light years away. If God created it all in 6 literal days then we wouldn't see any objects in the sky beyond 6k light years away. The light wouldn't have gotten here yet, and the speed of light is a constant. Also, if we are reading Genesis 1 line by line literally then God created the Earth before the sun yet we orbit the sun, God created man prior to Adam and Eve, and in the beginning of Genesis 2 it was all bare again because it had never rained.

Instead of apologetics, just DO CUTTING EDGE SCIENCE RESEARCH.

Mr Lisle has the hability to justify a fairy tale with pseudo science and make it look real. I would love to confront him with a real scientist and see how it goes.

@reneeb7400

3 жыл бұрын

He had done many debates with “real” scientists, many are available on KZread. Watch one and weep.😂

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@reneeb7400 Actually no he hasn't. I think the 'only' person he's debated in this respect is another creationist, Hugh Ross. He's just an Old Earth creationist. And, they didn't really delve much into any of Lisle's claims.

@reneeb7400

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 In that case I would very much like to see a debate with Dr Lisle and one of your scientists. I suspect that no one will “condescend” to debate a creationist.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@reneeb7400 Oh, so would I, but I would bet you serious $$ that Lisle would never do it. Because the first thing I would do is not just have ONE scientist debate him, but a whole team, and it wouldn't be a 'debate' format where people get to gish gallop or anything, rather, it would be a direct inquiry about the numerous claims Lisle has made on various subjects, and in turn individual experts on those areas would refute him at length with as much time as they need. He would be allowed to issue a retort however long he needs, but he would also need to present his data viewable to all members of the audience, and how he ascertained his claims. The scientists on the panel would also be allowed to present their evidential data. Lisle would never agree to this. He relies upon quips fired off on social media, videos where comments are often disabled, and his tightly controlled personal blog site where only his fans are paid members. Such is typical of disinformation peddlers.

@reneeb7400

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 So why exactly does it take a team of scientists to go up against Dr. Lisle? Kinda like a David versus Goliath scenario there? You do know who won that one? I would wager it’s your team that’s afraid to debate but I don’t believe in betting.

1:00:29 Yeah, you gotta pay him to engage with him. Gosh I didn't realize he started charging people. But this goes to show what I was talking about earlier how Lisle is 'very' careful about who he engages with. This is because he can't throw his pseudo-scientific claims at an expert and expect them to go unchallenged, and because he has to rely upon his presuppositional apologetics to get around anything else. Everything about this guy says 'go away' to anyone with sincere concerns about what he preaches.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I didn't pay anything, this was a free interview.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics He was talking about his website forum

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Oh yeah, talk to an astrophysicist forum. Well, you should reach out and see if you can ask him questions.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics It’s just his Biblical Science site. He only started that a few years ago. Before that he had his own blog and then was with ICR and AiG. He doesn’t cover science much. Fluff mostly

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Yep, I have followed him for years.

On top of that if you look at this - kzread.info/dash/bejne/c5-jttebcZiYg7Q.html it shows Lisle doing a great job of further explaining his proposed solution to the light travel problem. Much of his reasoning/research is enlightening on how we cannot verify for certain that the speed of light is the same coming and going from a light source to us and then being reflected away towards the source. However his conclusion that it is instantaneous in it's arrival is based on ZERO evidence and 100% SPECULATION based on his need to interpret the Genesis verse as being as literal as possible. This is about the most audacious example of what he calls a rescuing device which he rightly knows if a sign of desperation used to sure up a shaky idea ie: special pleading to post hoc, ancillary hypothoses that on their own are not likely but you need it to be true to support a more foundational supposition so you are forced to fold it in to your view- Well done Dr Lisle on providing us with the quintessential example of the unfounded rescuing device.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I don't remove comments. That being said there are 2 comments that in KZread Studio shows are no longer available. May have been the KZread algorithm because I believe in free speech, hence why I have people calling me an idiot, making fun of me, and arguing so adamantly against my position. 🤣 Try reposting the comments. 🤷‍♂️

@davidbutler1857

2 жыл бұрын

The goal with most of these arguments by creationists is to create a mental hump over which most casual viewers/readers will not go over. He knows full well that most people won't immediately realize that he's making a zero evidence claim, because they'll often spend so much time trying to figure out the initial rationale for it (trying to understand the OWS issue itself) that at this point, he's more or less established some sort of scientific credibility in their minds, so they no longer question what he says. That's when he just abandons the entire argument, and never really ever has to entertain the notion of explaining how light actually arrives instantaneously, just because determining the OWS experimentally isn't really possible (although it can be indirectly determined, which of course he never mentions).

@dan4091

2 жыл бұрын

OK, so the instant God created Adam (as a non-infant adult) an outside observer would have looked at a full grown Adam and then estimated the age of the earth at that time to be at least as old as Adam looked, yet according to Genesis that outside observer's estimate would be entirely wrong. Same applies to trees, God created the trees, some big, some small, so a outside observer goes up to one of the big trees, shoves in a corer, pulls it out, counts up 100 or 200 or whatever rings, and concludes the earth must be at least 100 or 200 or whatever years old. But he'd be wrong too. Creation was a discontinuity. You cannot apply continuity to a discontinuity. On the day God created stars and distant galaxies, He created them as presently observable objects. God didn't need to sit back and wait several light years for the light from the star He just created to reach the earth, the same One who created the star created also the stream of light so that it could be observed. No need for any fancy scientific explanation where there is none, nothing can explain the instantaneous creation of an adult man or large tree or an instantly observable distant star. I don't want to discourage anyone from having fun thought experiments but ultimately they aren't really necessary.

@davidbutler1857

2 жыл бұрын

@@dan4091 So why would a deity lie? Why can't trees newly created simply show some indication of their special creation, instead of looking 'like' they are older?

WARNING: there is a 'troll' in the wilderness below!

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

Commenting on a public video with open comments and countering Lisle's claims point by point with time stamps is not 'trolling'. I have no interest in attacking you, or saying things meant to trigger you, which by contrast, YOU are doing by making wild unrelated statements in reply to my comments.

@suppppz8996

3 жыл бұрын

​@@davidbutler1857 1948 is Biblical. Abraham was born in 1948 am. GOD Foreshadowed 1948 when HE Revived us! 1967 there was a blood moon and blood moons and solar eclipses are Biblical!!!!!!! 1967 we won on the 7th day in a 6 day war verses multiple enemies, All Glory to GOD!!!!!!! HE Made us win on the 7th day just like in The Bible!!!!!!! Like in the battle of Jericho!!!!!!! Blood moon on 1967 first day of Passover, and feast of Tabernacle and then same thing following year!

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@suppppz8996 Uh, okay.

53:00 The use of the Mandelbrot set as an argument for god or whatever is simply an argument from ignorance/incredulity. Not really worth addressing beyond that. Lisle seems fascinated by it and he often uses it as an argument in his presentations, and I guess it works as an 'amazing thing' that he can use on people.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

I disagree, it certainly isn't God of the gaps since it is in line with the nature of God. I don't see it as ignorance also but it's not a negative assertion but positive.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics But if you invent a god in which he can do anything then obviously you can thusly declare it’s in his nature. It’s circular logic. Keep in mind my reply on this in the other comment.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 this is where we will end up disagreeing because I believe in the revelation of God's being based upon His word and general revelation, which I know you will disagree. Also, with the charge of circular logic, or reasoning, there is nothing inherently wrong with that type of reasoning because we do it many times. For instance, one must use the Laws of Logic in order to prove the Laws of Logic. One must presuppose that the Law of Non-Contradiction is a legitimate Law in order to prove that no logical contradictions exist. Where exactly does this abstract Law originate? Also, why is mathematics transcendent and universal? While we have numbers or symbols that are figures, no matter the culture, time, or location, 2+2 will always equal 4. And these are a couple of the areas that naturalism falls short, how to answer the metaphysical questions of reality while not relegating reality to a psuedo-conscious state. These are just an example, of course. And as the naturalist tends to do with the fractal dilemma, the most common answer of "we don't know" is a form of special pleading, though the naturalist will never see it as such (just like when the atheist claims they don't have to prove their statement that God doesn't exist...most are unfamiliar with how logical arguments work, and whether positive or negative statement, any statement bears the burden of proof, which is why the New Atheists changed their course of saying belief is irrational, rather than God doesn't exist...they were honest with their logical argument fallacies and adjusted their tactic.) However, we will both disagree on this topic and that's perfectly fine. Ultimately we all will have to choose what we do with the light and revelation we receive and from there we will base our decisions, beliefs, and worldviews. In the end, one of us is wrong and one of us is right, and (though you'll disagree), I will trust in Pascal's Wager, Occums Razor, and the many other philosophical ideas (as well as God's revelation from Scripture, history, archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, etc) that prove the existence of God is very reasonable, and more often the most reasonable existence for life over the naturalist views. It was good reading your comments, you seem to know what you're talking about in this arena, more so than what I know about astrophysics. Feel free to keep posting as these comments will remain, but I will be moving on friend. If you ever are compelled, I'd be curious to speak with you about your deconversion, as I am interested in these accounts, feel free to email me at c4capologetics@gmail.com. - Daniel

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics Sadly you’re just wrong here. You’re basically throwing everything to the predetermined conclusion that a god of your invention (mankind’s) can be and must be responsible for all we see and know and the simple problem is that we just don’t know this. A person can just as easily use this argument of yours against you and affirm their own deity or force for something. Unlike ‘we don’t know’ (which does not purport to be an answer as you proclaim).

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidbutler1857 you roped me in...lol. My darn desire for the last word :) ​ My final comment, I promise, lol. You are correct anyone can "affirm their own deity or force for something," however that is where abductive reasoning comes into play. We can test the reasonableness of an orbiting tea cup in space, or the flying spaghetti monster, or Muhammad flying to heaven on a winged horse, or the avatars of the Hindu gods, and on, and on. We each must draw our beliefs based upon abductive reasoning, which is the most plausible, based upon what we see and what we know. You draw your beliefs based upon your abductive reasoning, and I draw mine. And that is the difference between Christianity and the other views...the plausibility of the Christian God, compared to the other deities. Even Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (who now knows the truth) realize this, hence, again, why they adjusted their tactic to argue belief is unnecessary and irrational, rather than proving the non-existence of something (which can never be done, but only rationally argued against). And the linchpin in this is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. All empty tomb hypotheses (they're not even theories because they aren't strong enough) are easily dismissed by the historical, cultural knowledge of the day.

I'm gonna take a break from this video for a bit, but I'm about halfway through and Lisle has either outright lied or simply omitted crucial information in everything he's said. Most of it pretty basic levels of lying too, like when he says stuff like 'no they really have no idea' when he knows full well that they do, or by saying that the KPG crater isn't round when you can check this in 2 seconds and show him to be wrong. Really astounding levels of deceit here. You'll never see this guy appear in front of his peers in any of these fields to make these arguments.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Funny. You should see about talking to him. He's a pretty level headed guy. Perchance, do you have any degrees in physics or astronomy?

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics I certainly would, but I've followed him for a long time and he's pretty notorious about avoiding discussion with anyone outside his echo chambers. The blog he has or used to operate involved him carefully screening anyone who would dare question him and then attacking them as not bowing to his presuppositional apologetics methods. I check in on him every so often to see what he's up to. He's level headed about what he does for a living. He knows what to say and who to say it to, which is why you don't see him in colleges or performing any academic work to prove his claims, but instead tours various backcountry churches to give lectures about creationism and evolution and so on. Notably, he has no education whatsoever about Evolution, Geology, or anything of that sort, and he relies pretty heavily on some standard creationist materials, and when that fails him, he goes to his presuppositional apologetics. Which, nobody considers level-headed. So on that note, no he's not very. My education is a Masters in Data Analytics (Think statistics but with an eye towards big data and software tools and analysis). I did originally major in Astronomy interestingly enough, but just like Lisle, I realized there was no stable career path with it. Since I was learning mathematics and statistical analysis already as part of that major, I switched because I knew where the better career options were. My area of interest was in binary stars (the non-visual ones). As for Lisle, he abandoned his career because as he said he was always interested in his evangelism. His last/only professional work was his dissertation and some other stuff he did while an assistant. Going on 15 years since he's put a pen to anything academic. He did it more or less for the personal interest and street creds it gives him, but you'll often notice that he almost NEVER dives very deep into actual Astronomy topics other than light fluff (To my point on the Oort cloud and other stuff, he just fires off a quick lie or misinformation about it and moves on as fast as he can). As a for instance, I'd love to see him give a clear answer about the existence of emission jets (relativistic jets as they are sometimes called) and how that calls into question his claims about light and the age of the universe, but as I've seen from him, he often tries to revert to his presuppositional arguments or some other creationist/conspiracy claims about this stuff. Guys like him only intend to ride on the horse of their credentials while never actually employing them. That said, nothing he's said here is very reliant on Physics or Astronomy. This is basic high school level stuff. Like the papers by Oort would be something you'd dive into as a Freshman in college, and so you'd have seen very quickly what short/long period comets are, how Oort ascertained his hypothesis, and then learn about all the evidence about comets and how the notion of it as a 'rescuing device' is just stupid. It's just gravity and direct observations of comets and their patterns. VERY basic stuff. Anyway, As I've pointed out he's outright lied about a number of things and if your only goal here is to attack my character or credentials, you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm an educated person who knows these topics as well as he does and better, considering that I haven't lied about any of them to you. I suggest you look up some of the points I've made and judge for yourself.To that end, I've noticed that this is the only comment I've made that you've even tried to reply to since the first one. I seriously would recommend you read up on these. If you wish, I can provide you even with some basic citations to start with. Just pick a subject and I'm game. Note, I'm not trying to be combative or anything, but I'm getting pretty tired of someone immediately going after MY credentials when they've just finished asking a guy like Lisle about the subject of Geology or numerous other fields of science that he's not even credentialed in.

@C4CApologetics

3 жыл бұрын

Nope wasn't attacking just curious. Most people post arguments in area theyre not educated in. :

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@C4CApologetics Well in fairness I've self-educated on these topics because I've spent over a decade now arguing with creationists online. My college background helps this along to be sure because data analysis is fundamental, but It all started because I commented on a Scientific American article on my Facebook feed, and a Young Earth Creationist replied to me with something I'd never seen before. After arguing with him, some people saw the exchange and invited me to some FB groups that discussed this stuff. Going on years later, I've seen read numerous books on relevant topics, read TONS of scientific papers, pretty much everything. I've read some of Lisle's 'books' (If you can call them that, they're very lightweight stuff), even some of his papers, I've read books by Stephen Meyer, Douglas Axe, Michael Behe, Henry Morris, Ronald Numbers (he has a definitive work about Creationists), then Biology textbooks on Evolution, Bird Biology, Biogeography, Geology, various Science books ranging from Dawkins to of course, Origin of Species, then specific books about Radioactivity related sciences like the Atomic Bomb to how we date things using radioactivity, then books on Petroleum Geology (which is IMHO the absolute best most applicable way to understand how Creationism is nonsense) which demonstrate using industrial applications, how the age of the Earth is relevant to our daily lives and how the science works. In that time I've engaged with many Apologist types, seen pretty much every argument they have, and whenever I do see something new, I research it. I go dig up original papers, I will even order a book by the person or whatever to make sure I know what I'm talking about. If I could recommend any particular book on Science that would destroy Creationism or at least lay the foundation of it, it would be a book on Petroleum Geology. I might follow that up with Bill Bryson's book 'A short history of nearly Everything' which punches a hole in a lot of the claims that science is anti-god or whatever in addition to explaining the history of how we know certain things in science today. Plenty more to be sure, but the first one especially doesn't care about your feelings about a god or anything, it's just a brutal description of how we find oil and all the sciences that go into play to do it, and you simply cannot argue with any of it because its literally a trillion dollar industry that doesn't mess around with misrepresentations or agendas.

The strength of the magnetic field of Earth is cyclic and the magnetic poles reverse. Lisle knows this. We have a very accurate record in the ocean crust. Strike two.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the interviewer even asks him about it a little ways into the video and Lisle switches up his answer a little bit, realizing that the guy knows a bit more about the subject than he thought. Lisle correctly knows that most of his audience and most of his interviewers know nothing about these topics.

@jmichaelrice2

3 жыл бұрын

Pole reversal is theoretical at best and there are theories that offer a different yet plausible explanation, but it would seem youre set in your dogmatic views.

@davidbutler1857

3 жыл бұрын

@@jmichaelrice2 No, they are not 'theoretical'. See www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html

22:00 Okay Lisle is just throwing out random stuff about relativity here, but as far as his 'one way speed of light', the issue is in our inability to test it easily. It's a god of the gaps argument. We basically just don't have an instrumentation way of performing this measurement, although we've tried with inconclusive results. So he seems to be arguing that it's 'possible' if you time dilated enough, to have light arriving earlier, like as a sort of gravitational lensing. But he doesn't have any actual support for this argument, other than 'The Bible'.