In July 2010, Lisle announced that he was working on a research paper that would be published in the Answers Research Journal, a creation science journal controlled by Answers in Genesis.[11] He claimed that this paper would fully solve the starlight problem, and that publishing it in a peer reviewed journal would make it legitimate. However, considering he is publishing in the ARJ and not Science or Nature where such Earth-shattering revelations about physics belong (although Lisle denies this should be the case), some might suspect his "idea" isn't up to much. And an "idea" it is, as Lisle has admitted that he is just using "research that has already been published in secular journals"Jason Lisle
Jason P. Lisle (1950–) was previously Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research, as well as a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]rationalwiki.org
I tend to do this whenever someone proposes a source. So what we have here is an actual scientist who proposes ideas that if true would revolutionize science and than subsequently decides that his ideas are best published not in Nature but in the ARJ(Answers Research Journal). Can you explain to me why that is?
I said the man makes me think. Not knowing who or what criteria he based his decisions on, I cannot answer for him. Personally, I have left the door open to the fact that the word "days" in Genesis only means equal periods of time. a "day" could be any measurement of time. Lisle calls a lot of commonly held beliefs into question. Unlike extremists who demand nonexistent / definitive proof from either side, I'm not good at accepting or rejecting any proposition based upon any personal prejudices. Neither do I claim that what I believe in is the whole truth and fact just because some group I like gives me bias confirmation. What I'm saying to you and other non-believers, just because the masses might be non-believers does not prove your proposition. As stated, every atom, every molecule, every scintilla of matter had an origination point. You cannot get something from nothing and no amount of psycho babble from people trying to use fifty dollar words to convey a ten cent concept can change that.
What you are doing is trying to move the goalposts when science rules out something.
First of most of the masses still believe in some form of a higher being as has been the case for millennia. Every single one of those people who believed claimed they knew. Science is actually the only thing that doesn't condition it's veracity on"the masses" it's only condition is that it's propositions are supported by evidence.
And yet you believe in God. Who created him? If you say nobody to that question than you do believe in something from nothing.
By the way, something from nothing is a strawman put up by religious people to describe atheists. Nobody as far as I can tell really proposes that life or the universe came from nothing. At the worst what you'll get is "I don't know". Something that is a hell of a lot more honest answer than "I believe" god did it.
1) Science has not ruled out anything - Lisle shows that
2) You have no evidence - all you have is faith. You cannot get something from nothing. THAT is the bottom line
3) God came from somewhere if he exists. You find fault with my acceptance the He does exist and you expect me to blindly expect that whatever matter caused the earth to be formed just exists. Both our positions are rooted in faith since you lack any scientific evidence for your premise.
Science rules out stuff all the time. It comes out with a hypothesis and then tries to find ways to test it. If the tests show something else the hypothesis is ruled out. Lisle shows something else. What he shows that even people who have a PhD can ignore the scientific method of which peer review is a cornerstone in favor of religion.
I have plenty of evidence. I have evidence that the earth exists. I have evidence the Universe exists. I have evidence the Earth is way older than 6000 years. I have evidence that at the beginning of life on this planet no complex lifeforms existed. I can show that stars are way further than 6000 lightyears. I can prove that gravity exists. Etc. Etc. You, on the other hand, have absolutely zero proof that God exists. This means to me that God as an hypothesis is unproven and as such invalid.
Again, though you can prove that such things exist, you cannot prove their origination point. You don't seem to understand that you cannot get something from nothing. You have zero evidence to show from where all those things originate. You take their existence on faith, not science.
Christians have the secular history of Jesus Christ and his miracles. So, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, he gave testimony of our father in Heaven. Hate to break it to you, but that is evidence.
If I can prove all these things I can disprove the entire book of Genisis.
You don't seem to get that I never claimed something came from nothing. That is what you claim is my belief. I claim I don't know how we originated. I suspect a certain way but just like with God I feel that suspicion is not sufficiently proven for me to claim I know. On the other hand, the start of our universe is sufficiently proven for me to claim that I know. What happened before that I do not. See how it works? You on the other hand feel that God is a sufficient explanation. That's the difference between you and me.
There is absolutely no secular history that Jesus Christ existed. And even if there was, his claim he was speaking for God would not count as evidence. The lunatic asylum is full of people who claim they hear voices, and history is full of people who claimed they were speaking for some deity or another.
Yes, there has been evidence of Jesus. Denying it does little to disprove it. If you cannot tell us where matter originated, you've proven my premise.
Show me the evidence please than I'll be very interested.
As to me having to be able to tell you where matter comes from. Why? Does me not knowing something proves God? You do realize that's the God of the gaps argument? I know where elements come from. https://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3 - MATTER/nuclear synthesis.pdf Is that sufficient?
I looked at your link. It still presupposes that something exists. You have to take all that on faith. But, since you want to talk evidence, I'd like to share something I found (and I post stuff that makes you think - it has NOTHING to do with what I personally believe or disbelieve. It's just evidence to be considered):
Charles Darwin Was Not A Scientist
Editor's Note: We appreciate all the contributions sent to us over the last month on whether a frum Jew can - or should - accept the theory of evolution considering that it doesn't easily fit the textwww.jewishpress.com
Your link is from someone with a clear agenda. From the Jewish aPress: “Josh Greenberger is author of "Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt.”
As a blogger who criticizes Darwin as a non-scientist, this guy has no credentials for anything but opinion.
Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather he took all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time) and explained them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural gods).
In the particular case of the fossil record, it was well known to geologists & paleontologists long before Darwin wrote Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record there were more differences in the animals represented vs. those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.
Did you look at the guy's credentials? Since I'm not Jewish and NOT a true believer of a 6 "day" creation, I don't agree with every statement that everybody makes. I used the opinions of others and what are those on your side doing? They are inferring I believe everything I read and should be held accountable for the statements of everybody on the face of the earth that disagrees with you.
I looked at the guys credentials and he identifies himself as a computer consultant. Maybe I misunderstood your intent but posters usually link to that which they believe supports their respective positions.
Most posters don't want to be objective and open minded. None of the people I cited would agree with me, but it's their line of work, so I have to take all the evidence and interpretations into consideration.
How can I be objective and open-minded when people make assertions that they don't support?
I'm quoting varying interpretations. I'm not making assertions. Better check a dictionary. Look, all my critics here claim my sources have an agenda. They do... and you do. My agenda is to get to the bottom line. I don't need semantics, people hiding behind 50 dollar words to convey a ten cent idea, and psychobabble doesn't impress me. My agenda is understanding. Your agenda is so important that you cannot afford to have your views scrutinized by various others. You're really mad because you get challenged. Sorry, I don't get it. I don't live in an echo chamber nor do I need to talk down to anyone here.
Being wholly objective, I cannot defend what I believe in on this thread. It has flaws. And your argument does too. Debaters are kind of like litigators. But, I'd like to share something with you: if you were to argue evidence in a court of law, the best preparation is to know the other guy's argument better than he knows it. You also have to know the flaws in your own arguments. In the instant case, non-believers simply do not have the evidence to prove their case. At least one poster admitted not knowing the origin of all time, space, and matter. All sides ultimately are relying on faith.
Christians will never be accepted by non-believers. Challenging their intelligence, knowledge or integrity based upon what others with an agenda have to say isn't very objective. So, I cite people that I don't necessarily agree with on every point. If all nonbelievers have is worrying about whether or not organizations of non-believers give the creationist their seal of approval only says to me, nonbelievers realize they don't have factual points so they have to attack the other guy's sources. But, I'm trying to get to the bottom line so if you attack sources because they are not accepted by organizations that have their own agenda that contradicts you, it's not changing the balance of the facts.
When you say there's secular proof of the existence of Jesus that's an assertion, not an interpretation. When you say the writers personally knew Jesus that's an assertion. As for not needing semantics?
You could have fooled me.
And no. Admitting that you don't know the origins of time, matter, and space, although time and space we know originated from the Big Bang. Einstein e=mc2 shows that. And we know the Big Bang happened because of the lines of evidence. But let's give you the origin of matter. It is not a weakness in the argument. We can see, feel, touch, and even smell matter. So it's existence requires no faith at all. I don't know who your mother is but it requires no faith on my part to know you have one.
God, on the other hand, does require faith. You can not see him. The books written about him requires believing fantastical things and are often contradictory. No evidence of him is ever presented. At least not evidence that can withstand the process of the scientific method.
