Debunking Creationists - Dr. Jason Lisle
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- I examine the claims of Dr. Jason Lisle, a young earth creationist who claims to have ultimate proof of creation. Because it is based on the presupposition that the Bible must be true, creationists must misconstrue and cherry pick the evidence to try to make it appear to fit the myth of creation. They also malign the process of science itself, which is why I am compelled to point out their errors and falsehoods. Lisle also employs presuppositional apologetics, which to me is so easy to debunk, I don't know how they could possibly convince anyone with such nonsense. Everything I claim in the video is backed by peer-reviewed scientific research.
Links to the original video "Ultimate Proof - Dr. Jason Lisle on Origins":
• Video
• Video
Scientific sources:
Evolution of Biological Information - www.ncbi.nlm.ni...
The age of the earth and comets - apps.usd.edu/es...
If you liked this video please like and subscribe. And feel free to drop me a line on Twitter at / voysovreason
This guy is amazing he says: "Evolutionary scientists are biased and I am biased but my bias is correct"
Honesty with both eyes open. You can dream!
+jamie Russell You should put the pipe down and wait a week before you write a comment.
It does *not* make you sound intelligent
@@Jamie-Russell-CME There is absolutely nothing honest about young earth creationism
It is baffling but also so frustrating to hear them say that it's the scientists who have the narrative.
@@smitty121981 As a christian - I agree.
It's shocking that an astrophysicist can be so dishonest.
fiveredpears I know, right? Fuck these guys.
The most probable case is that they deliberately abandon real science for higher pay and that its easier to write mindless creationist articles than to do actual work....
fiveredpears - the hypocrisy is stunning! These are supposed to be religious people who answer to God and they live without embarrassment or shame! how weak is their faith that they do not believe God could do whatever he wanted , why can't he have set up the Earth and the universe to be "hands off" ? Once in s while he could perform a miracle and rattle everyone's cage,lol.
With all due respect, As for evolution, it is not a science. It is a philosophy. Like Christianity, it attempts to explain how we all have come into existence. The forward in the 1971 "Origins of Species" says, "...belief in evolution is exactly parallel to belief in special creation". You have to use faith in both cases because we are talking about events that are not here to TEST, STUDY, or OBSERVE. Without that ability it will never be a true science no matter how much its followers wish it to be. We can not test the past. The bible says in Colossians 2:8 " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit". We are left with two options concerning man's existence. Creation or evolution. I've been there and done that. I have books from college stating that evolution is science and it is backed up with lots of evidence. Well if it is true, then evolution should have enormous volumes of evidence to support this hypothesis. Let's take a look. (1) The very First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed. So, where did energy come from? Evolutionist tell us that "all energy was condensed into a tiny speck....and the laws of physics can not account for this". They can not logically account for all the energy, yet want the status of being called a science. Evolution must by-pass this law and many more for it's hypothesis to even have a chance. Stating that the energy came from somewhere else is no different that telling us that life on earth was seeded from aliens. It dosen't answer the question. That alone is an illogical fallacy that should end the discussion here but as we all know, they are the ones with the microphone and power today, so we will continue. (2) What about all the matter that exists in the universe? Where did it come from. Their answer. "The tiny speck began to expand. At three minutes atomic nuclei appeared". Evolutionist have no idea when the universe came into being, yet want us to believe they know what happened at the three minute mark? (3) In 2004 dozens of scientist spoke out against this hypothesis and stated in the the New Scientist Journal, "The big bang theory can boast no predictions that have been validated by observation". A few observations that discredit the big bang theory are, Uranus is tilted on its side, Venus rotates in the opposite direction, Mars atmosphere is too thin and Mercury too dense. The letter goes on to say, "The big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. In no other field of Physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted". It's supported for one reason. Evolution is a phylosphy, not a science. (4) It is now known that the Red Shift in starlight does not support the big bang. Second order Doppler effect, gravitation, and photon interaction cause this red shift. The bible states that God stretched out the heavens. They are stretched out. The appearance of expansion is due to these other phenomenons. (5) Also the BB does not account for the smooth MBR (microwave background radiation) observed. We now know that all stars give off MBR. (6) If the BB were true and it occurred 15 billion years ago, all matter would be evenly distributed in the universe. It's not. Instead galaxy's are tightly wound up and separated by huge voids. Evolutionist acknowledge this and call it the Wound up Dilemma. (7) The Law of Biogenisis, "Life only comes from living matter", is yet another law that must be asked to pause so this hypothesis deemed a science can be considered. They teach as a "fact" that all life came from non life, yet admit that NO traces of these events remain. I know of no discipline in science that gets away with this. But this is how the left operates. Experience will prove this to be true. A clue is by observing their reaction when you disagree with them. You become a flat earthier no matter how smart you are. (8) All living things require left handed amino acids and all right handed nucleotides. Just pause and consider how this could possibly have occurred by chance. Impossible right? Of course. In a natural setting, these molecules are 50% left and 50% right, yet they MUST be all left or all right!!. (9) It has been calculated that the odds of just a simple protein forming on its own, even given the left handed amino acids and 15 billion years would be 1X10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Probability and chance is a science. BTW that number is greater than all the known atoms in the universe. Also, the simplest cell requires 600 of these proteins!! (10) A bacterial flagellum is made up of over 40 different proteins and is irreducibly complex. How did that possibly come about? No answer. (11) To make matters worse for evolutionist is the fact that these flagellum are put together by many regulatory machines which are irreducibly complex as well. (12) The Urey-Miller experiment never produced life in the lab, only non living molecules that were so caustic that they would have killed any nearby life. Yet we are told that life was created in the lab. Think for a moment. If life actually had been created, wouldn't that be proof that intelligent design is needed to create life? Non the less, the experiment is like producing calcium in the lab and saying you created life. (14) DNA is the most complex molecule in the universe. It is estimated that the chances of it forming by chance would be 1x 10 to the TEN Billionth power.!!!!! You have a better chance of winning the AZ lottery every week for 27,000 years in a row. (15) So WHY would anyone believe or teach something mathematically impossible? A Nobel Laureate, Dr. G. Wald from Harvard said, "I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in something that is scientifically impossible". The simple fact that God exists is too much for many people to handle. Immediately they realize that there will be a judgement. Belief in evolution only pushes the can down the road, for God says in Revelation that, "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord". (16) Another quote from a HS science text book, "We do not believe in spontaneous generation, but since it was the first living thing, it had to come from non living chemicals". Think about it. We are being told that life arose on its own, on its own, when scientists with all the equipment and money to spare can not even produce it in a lab. (17) Science should and has been in the past, the search for truth. Evolution has a history froth with lies and deception. There are too many professors to count who have been fired because they disagreed with evolution. That's not science. That's a fanatical phylosophical belief system. (18) There is no observable evidence of Darwinism occurring today, yet every day we see millions of biblical KINDS giving rise to their KINDS. Pause for a second and take that in. Everything so far mentioned is one illogical fallacy after illogical fallacy yet one is taught in schools and the other is not. In simple explanation its a spiritual battle for the minds of people. Jesus calls Satan a liar and deceiver. (19) In closing, though I have so much more that can be said, here are three FACTS that absolutely destroy evolution. ONE. All animals and plants posse DNA CODE BARRIERS which prevent them from ever giving rise to anything other than what they are. TWO. Micro Adaptations or put another way, the changes we see in varieties like dogs or humans or plants, result in the LOSS of genetic information. This is called GENE DEPLETION. In other word there is a weakening in the the gene pool. This is the exact opposite of what Darwinism needs. They need a method to add new and beneficial information to get new species, yet we observe the exact opposite. A weakening or wearing down of the gene pool. The second law of thermodynamics. Yes? THREE. Scientist today know of NO WAY for nature to add appreciable amounts of new and beneficial information to a gene pool. Everywhere we have witnessed information added, it has been done by a creature of intelligence.
joe perrino So.... Can you provide the name(s) of the Nobel Prize laureates for 'exposing the contradictions of evolutionary theory'?
Btw, there are SO many things wrong with a lot of what you commented about... I'll have to correct those points you made so wrongly in your post. I'll address them soon enough. There's just _so much_ that needs to be corrected. I'm going to have to break down all of your mistakes you posted and respond to each little bit... I'm sure, in the mean time though, you'll hear quite a bit from everyone else... ;)
EDIT: I'm just too lazy anymore, to deal with this long winded stuff. I've done so much of it already. I noticed someone else beat me to it anyway. I've noticed that we're the ones doing *all* the research. I wish you creationists would just do your own honest research, but apparently that's too much to ask of you...
Btw, 'creation scientists' (if they were honest or even knew what they were talking about) would be able to show some numerical calculations showing just how evolution by natural selection is at odds with the physical laws of thermodynamics (or even information theory, communication theory, or coding theory for that matter) after all, physical laws _do_ have equations ;). They should be able to plug in the data and _voila_! But no. They don't.
Explaining science to a theist is like explaining the benefits of eating salad to a dog.
Oh wow... "the facts don't tell you what happened, it's how you look at them"...
He is *literally* telling people to ignore reality and re-interpret the things they see in such a way that they match the bible, and then say "See! it matches the bible so the bible is true!".
That's why I dispise theists. It's not the fact that they believe in a god, but that they are so incredibly dishonest about it, while pretending that they are morally superior.
The question is "Why do they believe in the God they choose to believe in?"
Scripture shows HE chose us (the elect/believers) first before we chose HIM. Compared to other philosophies, the Christian one is the only one that is logically and intellectually cohesive.
+vinny142 I know, right? For a minute there I thought I was listening to Kirk Cameron or something.
Maria Leach
Ahhhh. No. Reading your other posts, you do not have logical problem solving skills and lack intellect.
jknengr796...So, you quote Ps. 137:9 to me. Since you don't believe in God you have no standard from which to judge that verse? And, since you don't,why should it be repulsive to you? Any judgment you make is purely arbitrary
This guy has a PhD in astronomy? I looked him up and the only references are from creationist sites. Also, why is he talking about DNA? He is an astronomer, not a molecular biologist. Can't find any scientific papers submitted by him any where. Only this BS book, which is NOT peer reviewed. Typical creationist shluck.
The case is made that creationists can't get peer reviewed due to bias and even nanning.
Also you don't need a whole degree in a field to have researched enough to know someone is wrong by detection of logical fallacy, people took small dinosaurs for different spiecies of a similar sort from big ones but now people are plainly aware of many being young. People get carried away and teach assumptions as truth without checking properly.
7:53 "For each one of these lines of evidence, and evolutionist can always invoke what we might call a rescuing device. He can come up with a hypothesis or a story that saves his worldview from what seems to be contrary evidence."
I think my irony alarm just broke
AgentMidnight I got the Superpro 5000 Irony Meter a while back. Sure it was pricey, but in the long run, you don't have to replace it as often, especially since it automatically shuts down whenever it runs into anything Glenn Beck says, you know, to prevent explosions.
Cubik "I think my irony alarm just broke"....a typical rescuing device! I think MY irony alarm just broke!
+Cubik The video poster used just such a "rescuing device" in his answer to the DNA evidence as his very first argument! So where is the irony?
A reprobate mind cannot be fixed. They will always believe the universe made itself. I feel sad for them, but arguing is useless.
Buddha had a moral code without any gods. 500 years before Christianity
***** Neither did the Old Testament. The earliest written parts of the Old Testament come from the 8th century BCE.
***** he didn't say it was a GOOD moral code
***** If all you know about a belief system is some malicious slander, it is best not to lay out that ignorance so proudly for all to shake their head at.
First Name Last Name
Except you probably didn't even know that budda did that - because if you did you would know that his marriage was arranged(not his own choice), he IS takeing cheap shots however- he could note the many references to spirituality and "enlightenment" of the spiritual sort, the references to ressurrection, the fact that budda gave additional rules to females, that budda claimed that he was "enlightened"(when this is unlikely), budda not being able to put into words why excessive indulgence is a bad thing......
Honestly speaking there is not a lot going for buddism.
doombybbr Buddha is not a person; it is a religious title, meaning "awakened one". The title is used in (branches of) multiple religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Cao Dai, Baha'i) with different meanings.
Lisle is an insult to his profession,
yep
He is a brilliant Astrophysicist.
Perfect example of an Argument From Authority: "I'm an expert Astrophysicist... let me talk to you about DNA."
+GOBIAS Industries If you can forgive me for being a bit pedantic, actually it's not even that much. If he was a biologist and wanted us to take his word on his conclusion, that would be an argument from authority. He's not even an authority on this subject to begin with ;) just saying
Mephistolomaniac No forgiveness needed! :)
I see what you're saying, but the Argument from Authority Fallacy usually deals with the "expert" not being an expert in the field at all or even slightly educated in it. It would certainly still hold in this example if the "expert" was a Biologist, but I think that may be another type of fallacy since he at least would have knowledge in the field.
The Discovery Institute is infamous for using this tactic. Their petition against evolution was signed by something like 150 PhD holders. Someone did the research and found that only 2 or 3 of them had their Doctorates in a Biology-related field. It was pretty funny to see what some of the degrees were in - Dentistry, Wildlife & Parks Management, etc. Good stuff!
GOBIAS Industries Yeah, I remember watching a video on that :p I guess my point was just that I'd want to be careful not to conflate the argument from authority with using false authority, because you know there will be a point where creationists think the have an infallible argument because now they *DID* get a biologist to chime in. Best not to confuse those who are easily manipulated to begin with ;)
If God appeared before an atheist, and smacked him upside the head, saying, "Here I am!", he still wouldn't believe.
+yolanda jerginson Comments like that are proof we are not evolving. Why don't you think about the real meaning of my statement, if you can.
As an atheist, I can confirm your assertion to be incorrect.
+VideoGamePlayer Person I'm fine with that. That's good! By the way, I love alien conspiracy theories, and wish an alien would smack me or beam me up.
That is a load of bullshit right there.
if muhammed appeared before you, bathed in light and riding a winged white horse and said, "you're an infidel". What would you do?
Love how they actually kind of laugh at the idea of an "argument from nothing", without a single shred of irony or hypocrisy
This video perfectly illustrates the old adages; “A wise man speaks because he has something to say. A fool speaks because he has to say something.”
kidnapping the king and knocking over the board is the only way i win my chess matches. im so good, nobody dares to play against me twice :D
Why would an astrophysicist be talking about DNA?
Milton Platt that is an *excellent* question.
Why would a Christian be talking about Science? If it wasn't in the bible then they have nothing to talk about.
You realize some of the biggest names in science were believers or not believe in god?
Milton Platt it's almost as silly as that dentist who says that thermo dynamics disprove the Big Bang
knightsofthelost
Yes but there names went down for math or meteorology or physiology
Have you ever seen a bio chemist who believes in god what about a biologist or a genetic engineer and have you ever seen a physicist claim the Big Bang is false
Science-defenders always seem to forget to ask this:
"Can you prove the magical events described in the Bible? What source of evidence do you have other than hearsay? Were you there? Do your claims stand up to the same rigorous testing that mine do?"
This video was well done, articulate, and entertaining. Thanks!
Any time someone says they have "Absolute proof" of ANYTHING, you know they haven't got a clue.
Earle Frost deep
Wait, why didn't I notice this before? DNA is shaped like a ladder and Jesus was a carpenter and Jesus is God!!! Holy shit, that's proof positive that God created us! Oh I forgot, correlation is not causation. Damn! Oh well, back to my meaningless existence. ;)
if6was929 I believe that Jesus might have been a carpenter, that proves that he was human and not godly, because if he was, why did he needed the money....his papy could give him everything he wanted....
We have a moral code BECAUSE it has survival value.
Unclear why religious people can not understand that. It's the same with all social creatures.
Jenna Don Because their misunderstanding of evolution and "survival of the fittest" is fundamental to their belief system. They have to turn it into a straw man argument because if they admitted what it really means they would have to also admit that it makes sense and doesn't necessarily contradict their little fantasy world. It just makes it possible to escape it.
+Edmond Dantez
If you had to kill your friend to live does that make it morally correct?
+Edmond Dantez
If you were freezing and needed your partners coat to stay warm would killing him make it morally correct since there is survival value in such an act?
bill guy Your hypothetical problem assumes limits not in direct evidence and provides insufficient information to arrive at a real decision. "Lifeboat ethics" is always a difficult subject as evidenced by the fact that you had to qualify your own hypothetical.
Science is bottom-up. We start with observations and build theories that explain things. Creationism is top-down. We start with an answer we like and search for "evidence" that fits our chosen answer.
Opinion!
@@idolrocks9017 No. More like fact.
ShadesofCascades - That is completely false: evolution and creation are both presuppositional and evidence driven. Creationists start with the Bible and a belief in a Creator; evolutionists start with a rejection of God and have found this evolution nonsense as the most suitable idea to fit your atheism. Both examine the same "evidence" and draw differing interpretations. You want to believe that you stand on higher ground that Creationists, but you are deceiving yourselves. Evolution is full of holes; glaring, obvious holes - you just won't acknowledge them. When you do, your theory falls flat.
@@littlelady4215 Sorry you are plain out making a lie.
@@littlelady4215 Evolutionist don't bother thinking about gods or deities and focus on the job at hand.
It's staggering to what extent creationists project their failings onto the scientific community, without even being aware of the irony.
What a waste of a PhD
Yeah, the last thing he ever published in any scientific capacity was his dissertation. He hasn't so much as contributed to a paper since then, so he is functionally out of work. I'd imagine that he's probably kept up on all the literature, but he spends all his free time in evangelism it seems, and railing against Evolution, which is odd given his background, because a freshman biology student knows more than he does about the subject.
barlart and your comment is a waste of 2 megabytes and those 70 line ones in the replies are a waste of 12 terra bytes
Actually he does have some genuine work in the peer reviewed press. But I suppose God told him to make more money from creationism. He is no Neil de Grasse Tyson though. In biochemistry which is not his subject he does not tell us why humans and animals are born with dreadful genetic diseases. Is god a failure at design?
A creationist speaks.
"Man decides truth."
In a sense, the above statement is true.
(You may wonder as to whether the above two statements are, in fact, true. Your initial impression may be that there is no sense in which "Man decides truth" could be true.)
An individual judges a proposition to be _true_ if his opinion as to what the proposition means matches his opinion of the state of reality.
What is objective is not a metaphysical state called "truth" or even "Truth," but the state of reality. There is an objective reality is the presupposition here. A reality that is consistent. Never a case of (A and not A). Never an uncaused event since time began. There is no "before" t=0. [Assuming the size of the universe is an exponential function of time, we find that at t=0 the universe was size 1.]
Embedded in presuppositionalism are metaphysical absolutes: Truth/Lies, Good/Evil, God/Devil, Law/Chaos.
Morality is about 1-1 interactions with other human beings being human, too.
Morality is not about Law and Order. Yet, almost the entire world today believes that a top-down rule of Law is necessary for Order.
For many, many Christians, Muslims, and Jews rules are dispensed by a God. To be moral is to obey rules of that highest authority. To be moral in society is to obey the rules -- exactly to the letter. If you can take advantage of the rules to your benefit, that is moral. (For example, Muslims stone homosexuals, but accept transgender surgery for women born in a man's body [the latter not covered in the Koran]. Orthodox Jewish women wear wigs because their hair must never be uncovered; that they look exactly as they would have had they grown it themselves doesn't matter.)
Be ethical and kind and empathetic and yourself in all your human interactions today. That takes no rulers. Nor any god.
(Proposition for your consideration: God did not create man; man created his gods.)
And that's the truth.
George Steele Well thought out...kudos!
The thing that pisses me off about Jason Lisle is that he damn well knows that he's lying about the stuff he's talking about. And he does these lectures in front of kids.
BlackburnBigdragon How do you know that he‘s aware that he‘s lying? Has he ever revealed he‘s actually secular or so?
What exactly was he liying about?
the thing about immoral atheists like you is that you know full well that you are lying, and you are passing your detrimental views on kids.
that they are animals, evolved from monkeys and that there is no creator, that one day will keep them accountable for their actions, FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO other people.
But if there's no God to create/enforce a standard of morality, then why would it matter if Dr. Lisle is lying? If we are nothing more than chemical accidents, then why not do what most benefits you personally?
I have to laugh at any creationist who talks about mutations being a "loss" of "information". Aside from the fact that DNA is not information, but a mutation would be the substituting an "A" for a "B" in a sequence of letters - this is not a loss, but a change of "information".
Sometimes PhD just means "piled higher and deeper".
This is one of the best debunkings of Creationism (and commonly accompanying nonsense) that I have seen. Fantastic work, VoysovReason.
I would argue the glasses analogy is actually the reverse. As a person of reason, my lenses aren't coloured by anything. I see the world as it is. I don't deny that there could be a God (there isn't any evidence proving or disproving it), but I don't need there to be a God to solidify my world view. The same can't be said for many creationists
"my lenses aren't coloured by anything. I see the world as it is. " circular reasoning moron..... You're literally too fucking stupid to explain anything.
"apart from the biblical god, morality can only be relative"
I like how it casually and without reason dismisses the possibility of other gods enforcing moral codes
This is a great video. Now as to the basic thesis of Creationism that I have heard about...
There must be a creator because the complexity of the universe implies creation. Man is too complex to have simply come about by chance. Obv that is not true, but let's suppose it were true. OK....
How did the creator come about?
Is the creator less complex than creation? More?
If more then the same principle applies, he is too complex to have been a product of chance then he must have been...yeah you got it.... CREATED!
But if the creator s less complex than his creation, then that establishes that complexity is not created but advances somehow...naturally I guess.
God is an eternal being. He is outside of and not effected by time, space or matter. Eternity is not a long, long, long time; it is no time. The only alternative is that all of the matter and space is eternal. But that can't be, because time, space and mater are inextricably linked. By the very definition of eternity, time can't exist in eternity, so neither can space and matter.
Warren Agey
Well I can't actually disagree. I would say that God is therefore undetectable in time, space, or matter by any artifact of science and is therefore undetectable. Further God cannot be assumed to make any changes to time, space or matter since he is not in them and not affected by them. But I don't see why time cannot exist in eternity.
Time has a starting point and an ending point.. The definition of eternity is no time. If you have mater and no time or space, where would you put it and when would you put it. Genesis 1:1 states: "In the beginning" that is when time began. Time, space and mater are characteristics of the physical world only.
Warren Agey Yes i agree time and matter are characteristics of the physical world only. And you must agree that humans are incapable of perceiving anything but the physical world. Indeed for ALL purposes there can be nothing but the physical world as pertains to anything that is IN the physical world.
TO speak of "before time" is to speak nonsense. There is nothing before time.
And if there is an end to time then there is nothing AFTER time either.
And if god is not part of the physical world it doesn't matter if he she it exists because existence can only be stated in terms of the physical world. God is bound by time or is not real god is bound by space or is not real.
Eternity is a term that means nothing by your definition.
Warren Agey
I am not saying any such thing. The Universe exists. Speculating that some supernatural being created it is by definition improvable and beyond the ability of any reality based consideration.It is no more improbable that the Universe existed without God than that it existed with God. It is no more mysterious that the Universe came to exist with no cause than to say God came to exist with no cause. (or "always" existed outside of time because yo yourself showed that the term "always" has no meaning absent a Universe).
If Time does not exist until the Universe does (and you are correct in that) then there was no time at which it was created and no time at which it did not exist. SO "all of a sudden" nothing happened because "all of a sudden" implies the existence of time. And you yourself said there is no time until the Universe makes time.
If the Universe does not exist after time ceases to exist (which I don't accept since I don't see why the Universe would ever not exist) then there is "no time where the Universe does not exist." Literally that is a restatement of your thesis. There can never be a time when there is no Universe. Nor has there ever been a time when it did not exist, therefore the Universe is eternal.
How one can get a PHD with so low knowledge in science ?
Easy. He went to a university just as deluded and ignorant as him
Yeah, University of Colorado.
Did the creationists nose got longer as he spoke???
Is lying an Objective Morality you think people shouldn't violate?
Lying is a collective morality. One shouldnt lie, but sometimes it is necessary.
Who determines when its alright to lie?
We do. It is not black or white. Its in a very gray area. Not everything can be stated as a yes or no answer or right or wrong. You seem to ask questions you only have a determine answer to no matter what I say. Btw, what do you mean by Objective morality?
Biological Morality that exists in us outside of our opinion.
So, would it be Ok to lie to someone if it protected them from something more dangerous?
If Ohio Wesleyan and Colorado produce "scientists" like Lisle, my kid ain't going to either. My money will go to universities that produce scientists, not "scientists."
this was super helpful. My physics teacher is a creationist who constantly quotes and preaches Jason lisles work and ideas. I now know how to articulate my responses.
Jaiten Saini how can such a person even be a teacher in the first place
Rob S, You seem to not understand what Dawkins is doing when he says maybe this happened or maybe that. You see, although the branches of the tree of evolution are filling up quite nicely, there are still unknowns that need to be filled. Would you rather he say "this very specific thing is the only possible explanation for how this particular feature could have come about?" That would be intellectual dishonesty to a similar level to that of creationists. Instead, he does what real scientists do and hypothesises possible explanations for what is observed. Those hypotheses put forth can then be tested and either be shown to miss the mark due to contradicting evidence or shown to be supported by all evidence collected so far. Seriously, people like you act like just because hypotheses are put forth concerning one feature like the eye or lungs that that's proof that evolution is false. Evolution is undeniably fact. Evidence from multiple fields of science support evolution. At this point, it is beyond established and now the focus is on filling in the remaining details that can be filled. We'll never know every single step along the way because we don't have fossils for every single generation of every animal that has ever existed, but we have enough fossils to fill in the very small gaps. Educate yourself on evolution before speaking on the topic. Thanks.
Dennis N does the n stand for Nedry?
I would love to see lisle argue with a flat earth proponent. If he really is an Astro physicist, An Astro physicist knows that the earth is not flat. how does he reconcile that with the biblical assertion that the earth is flat?
copstolemywife I am not a professional by any means on this topic but where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat?
No the bible does not say that the earth is flat. It says it is founded upon nothing ( Job 26:7) and flat earthers don't realise that there are metaphors in the bible and poetry in it. Also the bible also tells us that the earth moves ( Isiah 24:19, 2 Samuel 22:8, Psalms 18:7, )
Karl Metaphors: like Genesis 1 and 2!
mobinblack No this not my point. I think it is clear that Genesis 1 & 2 is talking how God created the world. This is not a metaphor. Do ypu know what is poetry? In poetry, we wright phrases to show how great or beautiful this is or how awful.
But at least if you accept Genesis 1 & 2 as metaphor then you can still believe the rest of the Bible. If you believe they are not then you realize the Bible as a whole is false, thanks to overwhelming scientific evidence.
I love Dr. Jason Lisle. He makes total sense! thanks for posting!!
+melisnmatt35 May your post reflect a twisted sense of humor ... fully lacking in 'total sense!'
There must be more money in spouting creationist rubbish than researching scientific facts.
A 'rescuing device'......Lisle has one himself....'god did it!'
But that one is consistant.
I honestly think anyone who betrays his/her scientific education, training, and livelihood like this should have their degrees revoked. I really do, and I stand behind that remark 100%! This is utterly disgusting, and it's even more disgusting that this crank not only is allowed to continue working in his field, but that his colleagues put up with this.
Have you not figured out yet that opinions give information about their owners, not their topics? The man you are attempting to belittle is talking about facts, science is about facts, not opinions. You are not an authority on intelligence. If their was a threat to the profession I am sure someone would address it and that they would not be scoping the comments section on CZcams to see what you think. Your opinions give no information except about you.
I was raised atheist and later realised their must be a creator. I dismissed man-made religion but now know that they Bible is the truth. God reveals the truth to whom he wills. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. Have you seen hell testimonies? Watch Mary K Baxter. God might let you know the truth. Note: Your belief that the Bible is not the truth is not based on facts or evidence.
Pete Mangum I couldn't agree more, when a person in his position uses religious beliefs to distort science the he is Should be struck off & not allowed to teach his dishonest perversion of science.
I wonder if you would take the position that Newton should be stripped of all of his rewards and medals, considering he was a massive Creationist; and even wrote a book called the Mathamatica Principia where he attempts to prove God purely in terms of mathematical necessity.
Newton is considered the greatest scientist that ever lived, so it would seem to me your standard for what should be revoked is at best...extremely misguided.
BoyKagome Utter nonsense. Religious superstition in Newton's day was still a strongly adhered-to institution - along with a general ignorance of the natural world. Newton and his peers can be forgiven for being dutifully brainwashed by religious hierarchy even though their knowledge of the science of their day told them otherwise. However, in the 21st century, there is no excuse for doggedly holding on to religious fantasy by anyone with an IQ over 85, much less true 'Scientists' who should know better.
Is it just me or does Jason's nose get bigger throughout the video?
There you go. Attack his ethics, because you can't come up with a better argument. Typical.
One of the many things that annoy me about Creationists is that they think that "evidence" is a counting noun, and can therefore be pluralized. It's not; it's a mass noun. There's no such thing as "evidences" or "an evidence."
"Dr." Jason Liar is simply another creationist who has contributed to my God-ectomy.
Check out Hugh Ross instead
@@KvDenko
Hugh Ross is only slightly less dishonest than Lisle.
@@ramigilneas9274 agreed. If you're looking for a religious organization that explores Science in an honest way, biologos has to be the best one
Which university teaches magic in its astrophysics curriculum?
Any university that teaches Darwinism teaches magic
@@grahamrogers3345 - Lisle studied Astrophysics, so evolution is not his area of expertise. I dont know your credentials, but unless you have a degree on evolution, keep your butt hurt to yourself and stop calling Science as Magic. And, stop making analogies between scientific observations and religious observations. They are not the same.
Happy to have found your channel. Can't get enough of debunking videos. Great stuff.
"you see"
I think what we're missing here is that Lisle is an "Astro-Physicist", which is completely different from an *astrophysicist*, who actually understands science.
There are several flaws in the "Dr.'s" comet claim. One that stands out the most to me is that he's ignoring the fact that only SOME "dirty snowballs" (comets) orbit stars. Therefor, only SOME (the ones actually designated "comets") are at any risk of evaporating in such a relatively short period of time; if at all (though given enough time, they're all likely to encounter stars and lose some mass). Others may exist for billions of years, or longer.
Where does your information that there are comets that are not in orbit around stars come from. Please give me a reference. I would like to read about this.
+Richard Rogers *Really? You need evidence that not all comets orbit stars? So you don't think there are any comets between solar systems? None? Please evidence something restricting ALL comets from leaving a solar system.*
Wood 'n' Stuff w/ Steve French may we see your astrophysics diploma?
asix really? Hiding behind ridicule to avoid producing evidence? How about you just do that? And since you're so smart, maybe you can find the Biblical evidence that you guys love to claim isn't there.
+PR "Hiding behind ridicule to avoid producing evidence?"
*Not at all. Comets form in the rotating cloud that produces a solar system, so comets can exist prior to a star even existing.*
"And since you're so smart, maybe you can find the Biblical evidence that you guys love to claim isn't there."
*If you don't supply evidence, I don't believe you have evidence. This is not that hard to grasp.*
"If there is no god, then why behave in a certain way. I mean it may have a survival value ..."
Yes YES. Exactly THAT ! That is the very basic principle of evolution : traits that have a survival value (actually a reproductive success value) are retained. And this include behavior and culture. I love how he just brushes it away so casually. He is basically saying "OK, maybe evolution is fundamentally and definitely right about this. But that's not important."
i am always hoping that when creationists talks about god did this and god did that if they could clarify and specify more which god they are talking about. we know there are thousands of gods that humanity on this planet believes in.. i hope he is not talking about the god of the bible yahweh because yahweh is mentioned 264 times in the bible as the warrior god(god of war) who created the universe and got really tired and on the seventh day had to relax and drink cool-aid.. lol
Of course they only mean their God, or worse yet...a personal one. I could throw up every time I hear that.
+Jenna Don
Why would a creationist speak for the ideas of other gods we deem to be false? We believe in a Creator who revealed Himself to his people Israel. Andre Hanna we only believe in one God and our beliefs about this God that differ from other religions is why we classify ourselves as "Christians" as a useful word to communicate.
How COULD they clarify? There are a thousand different CHRISTIAN GODS, depending on how the Holy Spirit...er...interprets for them.
The universe, you can believe two ways...
Creationists- believe in a magician who performs magic tricks.
Atheists- believe in magic tricks which perform out of nowhere by no one.
I agree, creationists believe in magic that defies physical reality, natural laws, and all plausibility, with zero evidence. While scientists look for natural mechanisms that make sense, and are physically possible and plausible. And when they can't find them, they say "I don't know" and keep looking. That is the intellectual honest position.
When you can demonstrate any supernatural force, only then you can start using it as an "explanation". Until then, it explains nothing. It's just magical thinking. And to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
These fools should have their degrees nullified.
I believe this clown works for Ken Ham.
He does he admitted he was and is telling lies he does not give a dam
This "clown" speaks perfect sense. Just because you believe in the fairy tale of evolution does not make it true.
So... everyone here has a Doctorate in one of the sciences? Or is everyone on here using presumptions?
If God created DNA then God made MANY mistakes because there is lots of illness that is caused by mistakes in DNA.
Love your videos, never stop!
WOOLgum Thanks so much. Working on Ben Carson next. :)
I don't know who Ben Carson is, I guess I'll find out soon. :)
WOOLgum
Oh wow, then you are in for a right treat!
Typical republican views, anti gay, anti womens rights, anti abortion, life begins at erection, anti everything normal, really, so I suppose that doesnt help round the numbers down at all I suppose, but this guy is just a slimy toad and the way he present himself, just makes me fucking puke... Oh again, just like most republican wankers in the US. They are all high and mighty religious bigots.
WOOLgum Think Phil Robertson with a Medical Degree...
Haha. :D
One must understand the elementary school mentality that leads to these ideas. For example, if you ahve a new deck of cards and shuffle it 1,000 times - that leads to what a theist would call "disorder". In reality, the new order is just as ordered, but the theist thinks that "new deck" order is somehow better. They see that when things make sense, a mind must be behind it, just as a mind put the cards into "order".
Lysle is obviously very knowledgeable, but dishonest. He pretends that short period comets like Halley are all the comets there are. That way "the material of those comets would have been blasted away long ago" True that Halley will eventually be decimated little by little every 76 years bysthe sun, but there are a whole lot of comets out there sitting out there by Pluto that will take its place. He actually acknowledged the Ort cloud but dismissed with sarcasm as "pretty clever"
He also brings up the moon leaving us at about an inch and a half a year, but says if you wind back the clock 4 1/2 billion years "then you got a problem" because the moon's surface would be scraping the Earth's surface. He must know the secular hypothesis of how we got the moon, that a body side-swiped us and became a ring of debris that coalesced into the moon, but if he omits that little tidbit then his ignorant followers go "ooooh yeeeaaaaah"
And where is the proof that the Earth was sideswiped by a body and became a ring of debris coalescing into the moon? Was there anyone around to observe this phenomenon? Hmmm...I think not! You need to read your information more carefully. Pay attention to words like "we think that..." "it's probable...", etc. These are not statements of fact. They are opinions. And the effective range of an opinion is zero!
a lunatic who thinks fish turn into people lying and claiming something was debunked
These are really, really, really good videos. Awesome work, sir.
Paul Moore - Kind of you to say.
Voysov Reason
Congratulations --- Excellent video Sir. Are you the narrator of the video?
I think his nose keeps getting bigger as the video goes on.
Dr. Jason Lisle, is a walking, breathing "appeal to authority" fallacy!
His kind needs to be eradicated
Don't exhibit your evil tendency? Nobody is seeking or demanding that you should be flushed into the sewage tank yet.
lisle doesn't give a shit about jesus, just his bank balance.
Bingo! That is the right answer!
Ah, a witch Dr.
Awesome video. Subscribed. Well done, and way to stay calm. I was shouting at the iPad every time the astro-physicist started talking. He has to know exactly how dishonest he is being, but that's what's required to hold his world view. Ridiculous and sad.
+John Parker he should be stripped of his title astro-physicist
+John Parker
After a while, I realized that he reminded me of Ted Cruz. The same self-righteous, smug arrogance, and of course the same lies.
Truth Seeker As an atheist I would say the opposite applies.
You defintely deserve more subscribers!
This creationist is not attempting to persuade anyone who understands biology. He is just reinforcing the confirmation bias of believers. It is just noise.
161 people don't understand, and yet they still disagree.
+JW Money I disagree.
This man has been so indoctrinated by his religion that he is no longer capable of critical thinking. He has so much invested in his delusion, that he would not be capable of accepting the idea that he might be misinformed. Debating this man would be pointless because the only evidence he would accept is what validates his position. I don't care how much education he has, I am still loath to think of him as a scientist.
Incidentally, I noticed he claimed that morality can only come from the *Christian* god. Apparently, it can't come from any other god. I wonder how *that* is supposed to work - probably by "don't look at the man behind the curtain".
How someone can be an astrophysicist and still a young earth creationist, it just goes to show how powerful indoctrination can be and why no child should ever be told anything about religion or even atheism until at least the age of 21, if that happened religion would disappear in a generation or two
The interesting part regarding the “picking up sticks on the Sabbath” is that those who caught him did not know how to handle the situation. They had to ask what sanction to impose for breaking this law. (Numbers 15:32-36)
YHWH in his infinite “wisdom” said that he must be stoned to death. The “morality” of this would be considered cruel and unusual punishment by today’s standards. Any modern day Christian would regard the death penalty as being too harsh for a petty theft or traffic ticket. But it seems that YHWH does not.
Its worse god knew before the guy was even born that he would pick up the sticks. However, interpreting or deciding what he meant to say is fine. Seems killing is more important than faith.
I'm losing hope in humanity
Almost every comment section
Has a flat Earther/creationist/anti-vaxxer/anything stupid
You need to stop lying, the Bible has nothing to do with "flat earth"
Creationist: argues that non Christians are inconsistent with everything
Also creationist: fails to be consistent with anything he claims
Basically all they did was verify everything Dr Lysle said
This so called "doctor" has less understanding than a first year undergrad. How on earth did he get a doctorate? What university is this?
Perhaps he learned to think at the same place Ed the Talking Horse learned to talk.
Theist: claims atheists actions and thoughts are inconsistent with their world view.
Also theist: proceeds to not beat or stone women to death.
Creationist : evolution is bullshit and your theory is wrong you can't prove it
Me : can YOU prove your theory?
Creationist : well the bible and "god" says so
I’m curious as to how he reconciles the order of creation from Genesis with what he knows about planetary formation, stellar evolution, the moon, sun, distances of the stars from earth, the atmosphere of the earth, etc.
He'll just say "goddidit, goddidit, goddidit".
Well...he does. And he knows that his peers know it too. Look at the Oort Cloud. Where is the proof of an Oort Cloud. There isn't any. Why is Evolition still called a theory? Explain that.
@@baberoot1998 true. Listen closely to the rebuttal language in this video
Christian world view is irrelevant , a Garry tale that is 3,000 years old preached by nomadic tribes in the desert . The bar is very low
There is such a huge difference between Christian and atheist apologists. The level of mockery in atheists' communication of their ideas is revealing.
8:33 "can't prove it's not there" / "argue from nothing, that's not a very good argument" fucker just broke my irony meter.
Also, empathy is an interesting form of my answer of "you can't logically defend an ethical framework which you would not be happy being placed in without knowing your role in advance"... i.e. if you argue for slavery being moral, you have to argue you'd be fine with the possibility of not only being in slavery, but having been born into it.
Jason is quite clear that he starts off believing the bible is true he uses 'Biblical Glasses' that is presupposition.
He talked about senses and how they cant be relied upon, but I'll assume his sense of smell is extraordinary.
Whenever a theist claims that without god there wouldn't be a reason to be moral he's a lying hypocrite because he knows very well that it all depends on upbringing, culture and other environmental factors. These factors form behavioral patterns we follow without too much of thinking. Atheism and theism comes later as eventual ideological confirmation of what we already are.
I like how you narrated this with minimal sarcasm, that takes away from a lot of other videos I've seen. It's the difference between a rant and an informational video. I liked it!
I weep for humanity ... we survived so long and now idiots like this show up and try to destroy it :( It is a shame to see someone who learned all this talking so much shit :(
So, when atheist scientists call DNA information, the analogy is valid. But when a Creation scientist calls DNA information, the analogy is invalid.
Highly illogical.
The difference is that when scientists use the word "information" they know they're using it as an analogy, whereas Creationists take it literally.
8:00 His story of how a scientist would answer him with "...but you can't prove it isn't there..." is pure bullshit!
Disproving a negative is a logical fallacy that every scientist knows about.
I now doubt this guy is even a phd. At least a phd. from an accredited university.
I'm a devout Christian, but not what you would call a Creationist. Yes, I believe God is responsible for all of creation. But I think that science is a wonderful tool to understand what God did. Therefore, I accept the standard model, "big bang" cosmology, and evolution. Science will always refine and even replace theories when appropriate, but I would be shocked beyond shocked if science ever says the Earth is 6000 years and humans didn't evolve from an ape-like ancestor. This is religionism at its finest to claim what so many creationists claim. Also, half of it is theologically unsound on top of it all.
So to what was Jesus referring when he spoke of Adam and Eve or Noah?
ExtantFrodo2
My almost completely faded faith required I answer this. Scholars, looking at the difference between Hebrew thought and the inherent Greek model (logic based) thought note that we apply the Greek model to the Hebrew proclamations of Jesus. In their mode of thought (at the time as now) a thing can be myth and real at the same time (myth meaning both unreal and a symbol with implications for culture and religion). And a decision doesn't need to be made between them as to whether the event (Adam, Noah etc) is historical and/ or meaningful.
This is a hazy way of thinking to my mind, but not without benefits.
Creationism however requires a reverse application of the Greek logic model be applied to the Bible. Events MUST be historical. References must be real. If Jesus said it, then it must have happened etc. They turn Jesus into their pastor and don't let him live in his own time.
It would have been hard to call someone a liar when you had no way to disprove their claims no matter how outrageous. Of course that had consequences either way.
This Lisle guy is a prime example of how education does not equal intellect.
I've always wondered how he got his PhD and yet believes the world is young(not billions of years)
The thing that creationists fail to realize, is that the big bang and Evolution could have been how God formed life in the first place. Why they have to disprove proven facts to believe in God, is beyond me.
The show is labelled “Origins”. Probably a TV show from a protestant broadcaster. That’s the only place dr. Lisle’s “arguments” will ever thrive.
Another question about fossils and the Flood just occured to me…
"Evolutionists" say that life started off in the oceans (or at least generally in water) and stayed there for a long time. So it is clearly aquatic life, and therefore leaves "aquatic fossils". If fossils were created by "the Flood" (which was without a doubt a shitload of water), how come that ONLY "aquatic fossils" are found in the lowest layers?
Wouldn't that mean that all aquatic life died first - because of water!? Logic should lead to the conclusion that most of aquatic fossils should rest ON TOP of all others, if there's really been a Flood.
Even if one were to accept this idiotic idea, all it would mean is that early replicators had ineffective, or no mechanisms to keep RNA/DNA from being badly replicated. That is not an argument against natural origins, but FOR it! We see that, for example, the genome of the amoeba is about 300 times the size of ours. Between genes that are not expressed in a species and mutation, that would seem to allow for a lot of change. Worst case, the could be a limit to evollution
Science: Look at the facts and see if they lead you to a conclusion.Religion: Start with a conclusion and ignore any facts that don't fit.
The last thing Watson and Crick thought about was whether DNA could be used to disprove god. It was just not an issue to them, any more than the need to disprove the Loch Ness Monster. This is Lisle's fantasy. There are books and videos about the discovery.
+Roedy Green Lisle always talk a lot of shit, I prefer to leave my shit in the toilet - and flush after me.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quaks like a duck, it must be a duck.... billed platypus.
The levels of double-think are crippling! Re: the Oort Cloud - "They'll say I CAN'T PROVE IT'S THERE BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT THERE". Is this really not ringing any bells Creationists?!...
Where did this guy get his degree, a diploma mill? My God, and I was shaking my head when I learned a few days ago that people were arguing for a flat earth again They fail to realize that the Bible is not, and has never claimed to be, a book of science
I can't make up my mind about lisle. He is actually a real scientist who has done real research into convection cells in the sun. Yet he spouts the most idiotic and obviously false arguments about young earth creationism that his education must tell him are a load of rubbish. Is he honestly delusional or is he cashing in his PhD for the creationist dollar?
Religious belief can have a strong effect, sometimes even on otherwise smart people. He is good at twisting facts and logic to fit his belief.
Knowledge and education doesn't alter our character. He is dishonest, he has always been dishonest. There is no mystery.
where did he buy his Dr title?
At least 85% of the scientific Community is atheist saying that something is not pure reviewed it's not a stretch when the biasedness of atheism is in the majority