Jason Lisle - I was wrong, he is just like other YECs

[a_haworthroberts]

My post at 6.35 pm on 14 April:

"(1)
Micah

Your science is ‘creation science’ and creation science is NOT part of science.

[Arbitrary. What is Ashley’s evidence to support his claim? He presets none. If we’re going to be arbitrary, then “evolution is not part of science.”]

“Like i said before, if you have a problem with how creationists interpret the evidence then show it. So far you just keep stating your opinion over and over.” READ MY MARCH 2012 REBUTTAL OF THIS BOOK REVIEW, MICAH (SEE PAGE 12 OF THE DISCUSSION): http://www.amazon.com/review/R1AFXXSP41 ... hisHelpful

[Can we expect the same level of argumentation there as Ashley has presented here? If so, then it may be a time-waster.]

“They publish papers because they think they are deluded?” Is English your first language? I suggested that they ARE deluded, not that they think they are.

[Again, Ashley provides no support for his claim.]

“i am not letting you get away with not answering the questions.” Bully for you. Except that I HAVE answered most questions.

[Where? Certainly not on this blog. We’ve asked how science would be possible in a chance universe, how morality would be possible in a chance universe, why laws of nature would be universal and invariant, why laws of mathematics would be invariant, and so on. Ashley hasn’t been able to answer any of these. He says “it just is” and continues to make unsupported claims, question-begging epithets, and abusive ad hominem fallacies.]

“How is it no friend to young earth creationists?” If it was a friend to YECs, YECs would not complain about science and scientists (evolutionists and old-agers), try to ‘refute’ the science they object to for theological reasons, and publish their own journals disagreeing with mainstream science. As I have already pointed out in these conversations.

[Ashley provides another straw-man argument. YECs do not “complain about science and scientists,” nor to YECs try to refute science in any way. Of course, creationists do refute the pseudo-scientific arguments presented by evolutionists. But that is because such arguments are based on fallacious reasoning. We love science.]

You are either dim or a time-waster or both.

[I’m somewhat impressed that Ashley has been able to combine the bifurcation fallacy with an abusive ad hominem fallacy in a single sentence. Not many people can pack so many errors into so few words. It’s also a rather ironic sentence, isn’t it?]"


COMMENTS ON LISLE
- "Can we expect the same level of argumentation there as Ashley has presented here? If so, then it may be a time-waster." You are very good at the propaganda, Jason. But I am sorry to inform you that Micah DID read it. Others may have done so too. Perhaps your followers are more open-minded than you?
- "Again, Ashley provides no support for his claim". My clearly expressed words were misunderstood (it happens). But - unlike you Jason - the person I addressed appears honest, and subsequently admitted that he had misread my words;
- "He says "it just is"." That WAS my answer, Jason. Deal with it;
- "We love science". Creation science is not science.

[a_haworthroberts]

And at 6.36 pm on 14 April:

"(2)
Assuming Jason does not censor this reply (as I’m now apparently on ‘pre-moderation’ I look forward to seeing whether he agrees with you about the Oort Cloud; you appear to be suggesting that mainstream astronomers are either incompetent or engaging in a wicked deception of the public – but perhaps the real deceivers are the anti-scientific YECs).

[Here Ashley commits the bifurcation fallacy. He gives us two options, neither of which is correct. He says that either mainstream astronomers are incompetent or engaging in a wicked deception of the public. In reality, neither is the case. Secular astronomers have a false worldview, and they are interpreting the evidence consistently within that worldview. Namely, the have to assume the existence of an undetectable Oort cloud because the alternative would mean that the solar system is young – a conclusion contrary to their worldview, though consistent with scientific evidence.]

[Ashley also commits the straw-man fallacy in suggesting the “YECs” are anti-scientific. I am not aware of any biblical creationists who are against science.]

“Thats a reason, something you still havent provided for the evolutionary worldview.” It’s just the ways things are. (You say you have another reason – bully for you.)

[“It’s just the way things are” is not a logical answer. Suppose Ashley asked me how I know creation is true, and I responded, “It’s just the way things are.” Should he accept that answer as rational? If not, then why should I accept his? Logical people have a good reason for their beliefs. Ashley does not, as he continues to demonstrate.]

“In an evolutionary worldview, why is it wrong to lie?” It just is. I assume you agree?

[Arbitrary. Again, Ashley shows that his faith is blind. He is unable to provide a logical reason from within his own worldview of why lying should be wrong. In a chance universe where people are simply chemical accidents, there is no logical reason not to lie if it benefits your survival. Ashley here reveals that in his heart-of-hearts, he does believe that God created the universe, and that God holds us accountable for our actions. Thus, he knows that lying is wrong. But Ashley cannot explain why from his professed worldview.]

“How does supernovae not fit with the Bible? Seems perfectly fine to me.” An arbitrary an unsupported claim given that they happened well over 6,000 years ago and that dying stars are not mentioned or implied anywhere in Genesis.

[“Transistors are not mentioned in Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species.’ Therefore, evolution is wrong.” Would that be a good argument? If not, then neither is Ashley’s argument that the Bible is somehow wrong because it doesn’t mention something that exists. There are an infinite number of things that any given book doesn’t mention; that doesn’t prove the book is wrong. With regard to when the supernovae happened, it is not the case that they happened more than 6000 years ago using the biblical synchrony convention – as I’ve demonstrated in my paper “The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention.”]

“Yet another arbitrary claim.” Well, you’ve just made one.

[That’s a tu quoque fallacy. And it’s also false. Micah has defended his position. But Ashley hasn’t been able to.]

And my claim was based on how YECs have behaved towards me over the internet. They are highly evasive – and closed-minded, dogmatic and defensive when it comes to science.

[Wow. Irony.]

They often ban dissenters who raise science topics from YEC websites too – see my reply to Aaron (assuming it survives the pre-moderation that I have been put onto, though it will also appear here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3195&start=15)

“The Bible doesnt need to mention something for the evidence to fit within a Biblical framework.” It does when it comes to evolution, apparently.

[Ashley’s comment here doesn’t make sense to me. The Bible is contrary to particles-to-people evolution. So we can have confidence that evolution is not true, in addition to the many scientific confirmations of the Bible. There are many things the Bible doesn’t mention. Why Ashley thinks that is a problem is beyond me.]"


COMMENT
Lisle claims to 'love' science but all he has done is accuse me of fallacies and being arbitrary - BEHIND MY BACK.

[a_haworthroberts]

Lisle has also annotated a couple of posts by 我の國.

ONE POST HE DID NOT ANNOTATE OR COMMENT ON WAS MY LAST POST TO MICAH, QUOTED ABOVE. He prefers to rabbit about undefined 'fallacies' instead.

[a_haworthroberts]

In fact I've just spotted that Micah did belatedly reply (the comment appeared at the bottom rather than next to mine). I've just replied to him as follows:

"I've only just spotted Micah's reply (and Jason's belated annotations of my posts 'behind my back').

"most of the fossils we do have are marine animals and plants, which would be expected in a flood scenario". A flood scenario would kill ie drown land animals (which is what the Bible suggests too).

"Again though, we shouldn’t assume that because animals live in certain areas today that they lived in the same places before the flood." Why shouldn't we? Because it weakens your argument?

"Keep in mind the pre-flood world was most likely very different from what it is now." In what way?

"We would not expect that in the Devonian rock layer. Its as absurd as thinking I am going to find a cow at the bottom of the ocean today. Those were the first layers that were laid down by the flood, it could have happened before the waters even got up to mammals. We don’t expect randomization to that extent." That's utter rubbish. Mammals are fossilised in shallow rock layers whether in places near the ocean or far from it. Yet they should be in deeper rock layers too if all animals were created in a single week around 6,000 years ago.

"I was just making the point that if we ever did see that degree of randomization it wouldn’t make sense in the evolutionary framework but it wouldn’t hurt the creation model at all". Hypothetical.

"Forgive me if I’m wrong, but don’t we find marine fossils high above sea level? Marine creatures are what creationists say were buried first, and we do still find them high up the geological record." The Bible doesn't say that marine creatures were killed in the flood. And high above sea level is not necessarily the same as high in the geological record.

"Monkeys are buried in higher layers than marine animals for example." I fear you are being serious. Are there any marine monkeys? *(From memory, I thought my preceding post(s) explained why a head for the hills scenario would mean burial further inland rather than closer to the surface for any creatures killed later on.)

"Okay, I’m assuming when you say ‘depth’ you mean farther down on the geological layers/column? If not then you’re going to have to explain that." Yes.

"In the flood scenario we would expect to find the creatures that were buried first at a lower depth/level." At lower altitude or closer to oceans and lakes.

"Creationists agree on that point." But the Himalaya only became mountains after being below the ocean. They were not temporarily covered by a raised ocean.

"creationists hold to the idea that there were no high mountains before the flood, so the altitude of what is now the Himalayas would have been much lower." Yes, I'm aware of this YEC fantasy regarding how they assume Earth was 5,000 years ago. There is no supporting evidence.

"Anti-evolution maybe, not science. But then, evolutionists love to equate the term science and evolution." Being dogmatically anti-evolution, after 150 years of failed attempts to disprove the theory, is - I suggest - an anti-scientific position.

"Naturalism assumes no God, so you are just wrong on that point I’m afraid." Am I? There are practising scientists who are also theistic evolutionists, and they - unlike 'creation sciences' - are happy to operate on naturalism in their science work but are also believers in God and in miracles (they believe the universe was fine-tuned for life and there IS evidence that that might be so - but this is an honest argument for God but YECs use dishonest or evidence-free arguments too).

"I have yet to see these facts". They are available online. But I am assuming you don't look at websites such as Biologos?

"A rapid ice age and the fossil record do not contradict the Bible, its what would be expected". No it is not. Take a look at Genesis 8 and 9."

[a_haworthroberts]

As just posted here:
http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/it ... gods-word/

"All
Jason Lisle has belatedly annotated most of my posts here, and tried very hard indeed to rubbish my words and arguments. See the text in square brackets.
For simplicity, the full details and brief refutations can both be found here (a community forum which is open to all):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&p=45424#p45424
I would encourage everyone to take a quick look."

[a_haworthroberts]

Email as sent - including to the ICR:


"JASON LISLE PLAYS GAMES WITH WORDS

Early on Friday evening I commented to a Christian friend with the
initials PC - to whom this email will be forwarded - that YEC Jason
Lisle of the Institute for Creation Research appears to tolerate
critical comments under his blog posts. My experience has been that
other YECs have indulged in censorship and even banned me 'at the drop
of a hat' eg Bob Sorensen and Jason Petersen.

However, I have just discovered that actually the ideologue Jason
Lisle (author of 'Discerning Truth') indulges in cowardly and underhand
behaviour towards critics under his blog posts.

Don't believe me? Well, please take a look here - and judge for
yourselves.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&p=45408#p45408

Lisle has not responded to them directly by making new posts, but has
instead annotated many of my existing posts with negative comments -
some days after the posts were made. I suggest that what Lisle has
attempted is character assassination pure and simple.

Two can play at that game.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts"

[a_haworthroberts]

YECs don't seem to complain about the 'No Honest Young Earth Creationist' fallacy.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle

Over and out.

[a_haworthroberts]

ANOTHER RATHER PETTY RESPONSE BY LISLE:

"Mat [Hunt]
This thread may be of interest to you (referring to how many of my posts above have been belatedly ‘edited’ by Mr Lisle).
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237
[Dr. Lisle: Actually, I haven’t ‘edited’ any of Ashley’s comments. Some of his libelous claims were removed because such unethical behavior is not permitted on my blog. But I have graciously permitted all of his other comments to stand as is. I have merely replied to them, exposing Ashley’s false claims and poor reasoning. Why is Ashley upset? I’m not rudely posting false claims and making character assassinations on his blog.]
Ashley"

MY REPLY JUST NOW:
"I suggest you READ my thread at the BCSE website, Jason (I don’t have a blog of my own by the way). It should answer your questions. I have also refuted there some of your many ‘behind my back’ criticisms of me made here. I dispute that in the instances concerned you exposed any ‘false claims’ or ‘poor reasoning’ on my part. In two or three instances you did either misquote or misrepresent me – either accidentally because you were rushing or else deliberately.
Also – although you knew that I am new here – you failed to inform me by mean[s] of a new (brief) post that you had not only shortened some of my posts but also had tried to tell your followers WHAT they should think about my posts and WHAT my words ‘really’ meant or showed."

[a_haworthroberts]

MORE unpleasantness from Mr Lisle (my post at 8.34 pm on 19 April):

"All

Jason Lisle has belatedly annotated most of my posts here, and tried very hard indeed to rubbish my words and arguments. See the text in square brackets.

[Dr. Lisle: Actually, I merely responded to Ashley’s false claims, and pointed out errors in his reasoning. Ashley’s arguments were already “rubbish.” I just explained why.]

For simplicity, the full details and brief refutations can both be found here (a community forum which is open to all):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&p=45424#p45424

[Apparently, Ashley prefers to simply state false claims, use bad arguments, and then takes offense when people point out the errors in his reasoning. He is not used to dealing with rational arguments. That being the case, he may want to stick to posting on evolutionist forums, where his fallacious reasoning will go unchallenged.]

I would encourage everyone to take a quick look."


I sense a worried man here - I must be attacked and virtually demonised, lest any of his followers take me seriously.
I HAVE JUST RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:
"I repeat, PLEASE would Jason’s blog followers take a look at my very detailed link, then consider Jason’s insertions in my post above, and make up YOUR OWN MIND. In particular, please check for YOURSELVES whether or not I am using rational arguments."

[a_haworthroberts]

By the way, most if not all of my comments appear very low down on the page of this particular blog post.

[a_haworthroberts]

MEMO TO SELF AND OTHER CRITICS OF BIBLICAL CREATIONIST APOLOGETICS

When a Biblical creationist apologist uses the word 'science' or 'scientific', or hears a critic using it, be aware that the apologist frequently means something different to what you might expect. He or she means Biblical or young Earth creationism. What everybody else would consider 'science' in a modern dictionary sense they would tend to dismiss as the misguided practice of 'naturalism' which they would say only is useful in making observations in laboratories or developing technology but which is utterly useless and a source of error if you try to extend the discipline into uncovering the truths about our origins (because we weren't there - but God was and has already told us what 'really' happened in the Bible). For the apologist, what I call science (or real science) is mere naturalism and/or the 'lie' of evolutionism, and what I call Biblical creationist apologetics is 'true' science or 'creation' science.

In his blog post Jason Lisle wrote: "when people reason from an ultimate standard that is not God’s Word, they are really simply basing their thinking on an arbitrary opinion". I suggested that he was implying - and implying wrongly - that scientific reasoning (which starts with physical evidence) was merely 'arbitrary'. I was slapped down by one or two of his followers and then by him for 'misrepresenting' him. I did not think I was. But of course, as I now realise, he was quietly redefining the word 'scientific' - to mean that the reasoning must start with scripture rather than with physical evidence when you are examining eg the history of the planet.

This shifting of definitions is what allows these apologists to keep hold of some small shred of credibility whenever they proclaim "we love science" or vehemently reject the charge that they are 'anti-science'.

I'm also posting this here: http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/it ... mment-2942

[a_haworthroberts]

Lisle has been stirring the pot again - clearly he feels he needs to closely monitor my posts (and undermine what I say for the benefit of his followers - the sort of thing cult leaders do if their authority is questioned).

I have just made the following new post (one of a number I have added today):



Dear All

Jason has been telling people what I think again. He obviously must fear either that his followers cannot form their own opinions of me or that they will form an opinion that he would prefer them not to form.

Unfortunately, in this latest example or [sorry 'of'] projection (like the ones where he implied that I know little about either science or about young Earth creationist claims) - he was completely wrong again.

What am I referring to you may ask?

Jason wrote earlier today (as an insert within one of my posts as usual - one timed at 7.00 pm on 20 April):
"“Why is Ashley afraid to respond here?”

This accusation refers to my rebuttals of some of his many attacks against my posts, which - for reasons of convenience and nothing else - I posted late on Friday at the new BCSE community forum thread alongside reproductions of my various posts here which Jason has 'edited'. It is self-evident that THIS thread has become rather unwieldy (even in an evolutionist worldview). How was I supposed to reply directly to Jason here when he did not actually make new posts directed at me but instead inserted negative 'commentaries' within my posts? (And often when I make a new post it appears way BELOW the post I was addressing.)

This again is the BCSE thread (THIS post will be added there):
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=15

Below are the rebuttals, as taken from the BCSE thread (in the order in which they appear). If you need to see WHICH exact Lisle comment I am addressing you will need to refer to the other thread. Sorry, if this means looking at two websites for the complete picture. But my time to address all Jason's false or irrelevant claims about me is NOT unlimited. And I am trying to keep this post as short and readable as possible.

BRIEF COMMENTS ON LISLE'S CLAIMS
- Scientists reason from 'an ultimate standard' that is not God’s Word. Thus Lisle DID imply that their reasoning is arbitrary. I did not misrepresent nor pretend to be quoting him;
- "You’ll notice that we creationists have good reasons for our position. Evolutionists don’t. And that’s the point. Ashley continues to demonstrate this." You would NEVER be satisfied, Jason;
- "Naturalism is incompatible with science, because science requires uniformity, and naturalism cannot justify uniformity." What drivel. The theory of evolution, part of science, assumes both naturalism and - where the evidence observed today points to such - uniformity (and uniformitarianism);
- "Evolution is not compatible with the notion of universal invariant laws of mathematics". Unsupported, arbitrary assertion and part of Jason's 'rhetoric'.

Brief comments on Lisle's rather ridiculous claims:
- "The circular nature of Ashley’s reasoning is easily exposed." There wasn't any;
- "This is another straw-man argument. Creationists would not expect rabbits, for example, to be found in the lowest geologic layers for this obvious reason: rabbits don’t live on the ocean floor". NO, it was a QUESTION (not a denial) Jason. Calm down. If places on LAND have more than one fossil-containing rock layer, we would expect to see mammals in both upper and lower layers if Noah's (recent) flood had happened - but we DON'T. Talk of rabbits not living on the ocean floor is simply MUDDYING THE WATERS (pun unintended);
- "Apes (note: not “ape-like creatures”, but rather “apes”) and birds are found only in the higher positions in the geologic column". Yes - and THAT supports evolution and an old Earth, not the Bible. In addition, Jason has misunderstood me. My comment in question referred to higher ALTITUDE. Does he think I am stupid?;
- "Hardly. Lower areas are generally flooded before higher areas. It’s pretty hard to argue against that". Are you being wilfully dishonest Jason? Or just incompetent? Re-read my words. I did NOT say "lower areas";
- "Ashley again misrepresents what Creationists teach". I did NO such thing. I merely made a FACTUAL statement (but I note Jason's implied admission that YECs teach falsehoods - I already knew this);
- "Note that Ashley continues to expose his suppressed knowledge of God by having confidence in science, which only makes sense in a Christian worldview." So why are YECs so ANTAGONISTIC towards science?

Comments on Lisle.
- "he seems to think that creationists are against real science". They frequently are;
- "I’m inclined to think that Ashley really doesn’t want to believe in creation for emotional reasons rather than legitimate logical reasons." It's BOTH, Jason;
- "No one has ever rejected the claims of Christianity for logical reasons." Jason is assuming that the science which YECs reject is 'illogical';
- "I’m not convinced that Ashley has studied science properly at all, given his previous claims". Since I know that I HAVE, as my friends and people on the BCSE site could confirm, this tells me that Jason is not interested in truth just in propaganda and stereotyping of his critics.

They look at evidence alone, assuming that what they see means something - they DON'T also look at religious texts like the YECs do. They operate on naturalism (that is silent on the existence of God as God apparently does 'natural' things). And they don't always assume uniformitarianism.

BRIEF COMMENTS ON LISLE
- "People visiting this blog might think that Ashley is a fictional person that I made up to make the evolutionists look bad – by pretending to be an evolutionist and posting absurd arguments full of logical fallacies and demonstrably false claims, making it look like evolutionists have a problem with basic reading comprehension." And your evidence for this claim is precisely WHAT, Jason? Kindly Put Up or Shut Up;
- "Why would anyone want to try to publish a science paper in a religious journal that is only peer-reviewed by evolutionists? Since evolution would render science foundationless, it makes no sense". I suggest that you would TRY if you thought you had a disproof of evolution and something which would convert people to fundamentalist Christianity - but all you have is your apologetics;
- "How does he know – on his worldview – that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging?" The question is STUPID;
- "It appears that he is indeed quite indoctrinated with evolutionism/naturalism." Said the anti-science fundamentalist.

Brief comment on Lisle's false allegations.
- "I can't answer that question. It's too hard. So I'm going to call it an 'idiot question' and hope that no one notices". You are a LIAR, Jason. It WAS an idiot question. I have already explained WHY on the BCSE site, and linked to the BCSE site on Jason's site. On 13 April I wrote on the BCSE site that it appeared that Robert was being "deliberately obtuse" and added "The opinion that Earth was flat was pre-scientific - I cannot believe he is such an idiot not to realise that";
- Jason's talk of 'character assassination' is utter hypocrisy given his comments in square brackets.

JASON'S COMMENTS HERE ARE SOME OF HIS MOST UNPLEASANT
- "I do allow guests to comment on my blog, but they must behave themselves and not act like a 2-year-old throwing a temper tantrum." YECs are more interested in demonising their critics than in discussing science;
- "Here Ashley reveals his ignorance of physics. In fact, scientists have proved that decay rates can be changed by a factor of a billion or more under certain circumstances, such as bound state beta decay. Moreover, we have compelling evidence that this has in fact been the case in the past. Ashley would have known this if he bothered to study what it is he argues against." I am not as clever as you, Jason, but I HAVE studied science and I HAVE studied YEC claims - for years. See my review of Sarfati's 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth' at Amazon.com. YECs have NO evidence whatsoever that radioactive decay rates could or did change ie accelerate vastly in the particular way they REQUIRE around 4,300 years or so ago WITHOUT rendering the Earth UNINHABITABLE. None;
- "attacking real scientists (creation scientists like me)...". The only people who think Jason is a 'real scientist' are other 'creation scientists' - those who reject SWATHES of science;
- "So we are left to wonder why Ashley thought this didn’t fit with Scripture". I thought you were a clever astronomer/cosmologist, Jason. Stars do NOT go supernova after just 6,000 years of existence.

COMMENTS ON LISLE
- "Can we expect the same level of argumentation there as Ashley has presented here? If so, then it may be a time-waster." You are very good at the propaganda, Jason. But I am sorry to inform you that Micah DID read it. Others may have done so too. Perhaps your followers are more open-minded than you?
- "Again, Ashley provides no support for his claim". My clearly expressed words were misunderstood (it happens). But - unlike you Jason - the person I addressed appears honest, and subsequently admitted that he had misread my words;
- "He says "it just is"." That WAS my answer, Jason. Deal with it;
- "We love science". Creation science is not science.

COMMENT
Lisle claims to 'love' science but all he has done is accuse me of fallacies and being arbitrary - BEHIND MY BACK.


I trust that Jason is satisfied that I have now been 'upfront' and overcome my 'fear' of posting my response on this website.

[a_haworthroberts]

Remember folks, Jason's site appears to be open to ALL (but don't behave like two year olds there). If you want a good solid debate with experts about logical fallacies (the ones committed by people who aren't YECs) it's THE place to go.

[a_haworthroberts]

Just seen one of Lisle's latest pronouncements. "Facts are only meaningful in a Christian worldview."