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

[a_haworthroberts]

Here are some thoughts I received by email from 'One Who Learns Online' in response to my email of the other night (his identity is unknown to me but he says he was a YEC Christian around 35-40 years ago; when I replied my email messed up the punctuation replacing other symbols with absurd question marks):

"I noticed the following Jason Lisle paragraph in Ashley's email report
about Lisle's "explosion" of annotations within Ashley's posts:
[Again, Ashley commits the fallacy of reification by suggesting that ?
science? has an opinion on the age of things. He could have avoided
this fallacy by writing ?scientists? instead of ?science,? but then
that would lead us to ask ?which scientists?? After all, not all
scientists believe that fossils buried in lower rock layers are ?much
older? than those buried in higher layers. Only those scientists that
reject a global flood would believe that. The circular nature of Ashley?
s reasoning is easily exposed.] -- Jason Lisle"...

"
Does Lisle really think that the paragraph makes him look "smarter"
or wiser than Ashley? ?And, of course, he tries to make it seem like
the two "sides" on these science issues are comparable and of equal
weight. ?Makes me sick. ?I love this part: ? "that 'science' has an
opinion on the age of things". ? How many things are trivial in his
empty rant?
He puts 'science' in quotes. ? ? Oh really? He calls that science mere
"opinion" ? ? Really? Mere opinion? He writes of the age of "things"? ?
Trivialize much?
So does Lisle really think Ashley chose the word SCIENCE and not
SCIENTISTS because he was resorting to "circular reasoning", as if he
was "pulling a fast one" over his readers??
I would nominate Lisle's paragraph as a prime example of his JUVENILE
level of discourse. ?I expect it of an uneducated Ken Ham....but Lisle
has been exposed to real science and a solid doctoral program. ?I'm
amazed that he can maintain (barely) an air of dignity while showing
the maturity of a grade-school smart-alec. ?(Dr. Lisle is never a model
of professionalism. ?And I NEVER resort to the word "never".) ? ? ?
[Yes, that was a tongue-in-cheek whimsy.]
Incidentally, there's been many times when Ken Ham & Co. have
dissected "evolutionist" statements and accused them of reification. ?
Yet, I've often taken those same phrases they blamed and put them into
Google along with the name "Ken Ham" or "Georgia Purdom" and found them
using the exact same phrases in other contexts! ? Hypocrisy again. ?
Indeed, Ken Ham likes to complain about "Evolution says that....." even
though Dr. Purdom regularly complains that "Evolution can't say
anything. That is the logical fallacy of reification!" ?Equivocation
games is all you've got when you certainly don't have any evidence for
your position. ?Do Lisle's fans notice that Lisle's paragraph
contributes NOTHING to the debate?
I don't know why I'm so honked off over just one paragraph that
represents nothing new. ?But Jason Lisle is an insult to Christ-
followers in ways that exceed all sanity. ?What a jerk. ? But perhaps I
was prodded beyond tolerance by his repetition in his Ashley-whine
about his "ultimate proof of God". ?He seems to insist that simply
because the universe makes sense, "that proves God." ? ?
But even as a Bible-affirming Christian myself, I don't understand
that "logic". ?Apparently Lisle thinks that if God did not exist, there
would be some kind of universe but everything would be "irrational" so
that things like cause-and-effect wouldn't apply. ?Apparently he thinks
that all events and results of actions would be unpredictable and
random. But why??? ?Does he really think that because 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 ?
(thereby making computers possible, so to speak), we know that God
exists.....but if 1+1=3 today but perhaps 1+1=4 tomorrow (or perhaps
1+1="dog" some of the time), then we would know that God does NOT
exist? ? How does Lisle know that such an "irrational" universe thought
experiment is something which makes "rational sense". ?Why should I
consider it a useful hypothetical? ?(Isn't an argument based upon the
possibility of an irrational universe much like coming up with a law of
physics which requires division by zero, an operation that is
officially "undefined" in mathematics? Why not ask what color this rock
weighs?) ?Indeed, isn't Lisle's contrast of rational and irrational
universes a violation of Ken Ham's "Were you there?" logic?
Am I correctly understanding Lisle's reasoning? (non-reasoning?) ? He
even says that the fact that Ashley can use a computer "proves God".....
as if Ashley's expression of doubts about a creator by means of typing
his thoughts on a computer is a grand act of hypocrisy or at least self-
contradiction. Is that what Lisle saying? ?If so, that's sad.
AN ASIDE: ? Young earth creationists like Ken Ham as well as YEC
pioneers like Morris & Whitcomb have all insisted that
Uniformitarianism is the bane of science----and that scientists should
NOT assume that present day observations can inform us about events in
the past. ?Many even claim that physical constants have not been
consistent over time and space. ?So aren't these claims that the
universe is NOT rational and consistent? Does this not directly
contradict everything Lisle is claiming in his "ultimate proof of God"?
?Indeed, by insisting that everything changed after the fall ---
including the very operations of the universe --- is that not yet
another assertion that we can't count on the universe to be as
consistent in its operations and as rational as Lisle claims the
Creator to be? ? Is not Ken Ham's "Were you there?" argument a rebuke
of any scientist who believes that we can trust EVIDENCE and a RATIONAL
UNIVERSE? Jason Lisle's rebuke of Ashley's alleged hypocrisy seems all
the more hypocritical here. ? I?would reason that young earth
creationists should be the LAST people to want to obsess on the
necessity of a rational universe to prove God's existence---because the
universe described by young earth creationists is the most irrational
one I could possibly imagine. They would have us believe that the laws
of physics here and now aren't consistent with the laws of physics in
the past and in other places. And if we can't count on evidence telling
us about reality (and have to be concerned about it deceiving us or
telling lies), what does that say about that "rational god"? ?(Is a
dishonest god a rational god?) ?In fact, if Dr. Lisle should ever
succeed in his "ultimate proof of God" argument, he would have
established the existence of a quite IRRATIONAL GOD. ?(So once again,
faced with a choice between the God of the Bible and Lisle's irrational
god, I prefer the former.)
I guess much of Lisle's rant against Ashley is just a rehash of
Lisle's "ultimate proof of God" book .....but has Lisle ever considered
that if nobody is convinced by the "proof", perhaps it isn't really a
proof? ? After all, a LEGITIMATE PROOF uses logical steps that are
basically?irrefutable?...or at least, are self-evident and not subject
to refutation. ?(In a real published proof, the critics can only reject
the proof if they find a step that is a logical failure or if it leaves
a gap undefined and unexplained. In a legitimate proof, the entirety
either stands or it doesn't. ?There are NOT any subjective aspects to
it. ?Reviewers and readers don't vote on whether they agree or
disagree. It is not a debate where people decide that they are
compelled to believe it or are not?inclined?to accept the proof. As a
result, valid proofs end up published in textbooks and become permanent
fixtures of human knowledge. But invalid proofs are usually forgotten
entirely. ?They rarely have any redeeming value---because they are NOT
actual proofs of anything.
So either Dr. Lisle doesn't know the definition of a proof *OR* he is
simply a liar and PRETENDS that he's published a proof of God's
existence. ? I doubt that he is stupid enough for the former, but I
believe he is manipulative enough to promote the latter among his
gullible followers. ?(Lisle KNOWS that his "proof" would never pass
peer review and he knows that it will never convince any non-
creationist not already within the tribal camp.)
I'm fine with "arguments for God". ?I'm fine with testimonies of "this
idea convinced me that God exists" or "this concept started me on a
path which led to my belief in God." ?(I'm even more accustomed to
claims that "this series of experiences led me to my belief in God.") ?
But calling any of those things "the ultimate proof of God" strikes me
as nothing more than blatant egotism, manipulation of the naive, and a
lamentable "I assert that God exists---and if you refuse to agree with
me, you are simply denying the truth." ??
I would be DELIGHTED if Lisle came up with a proof of ANY KIND
(whether or not an "ultimate" one) of God's existence. ?But I would
challenge Lisle to submit his ULTIMATE PROOF (or whatever) in any well
regarded Christian philosophy journal. ?And knowing some of the
editors, I can say without fear of contradiction that none would bother
reading more than a page or two. ?It would never be sent out to
reviewers. ?He exploits the "street definition" of the word "proof"
just like creationists do when they claim that evolution is "merely a
theory".?"

(His posts tend to be rather long. He is still a Christian believer by the way.)

[a_haworthroberts]

"“But the part you still need to explain is how we could know that such laws do not change with time – apart from God’s revelation in Genesis”. And Genesis does NOT reveal that radioactive decay rates decelerated one million fold to today’s unchanging levels, as is taught by many YECs who reject ‘millions of years’ for reasons of dogma, at the end of ‘Noah’s Flood’.

[Dr. Lisle: Here Ashley commits the Red Herring fallacy. This is when a person cannot answer the question put to him, so he tries to change the subject.]"

[Ashley has also repeated the argument from silence: e.g. the Bible doesn’t mention X, but you believe X, therefore… Well, he doesn’t actually state any conclusion. As I pointed out before, there are an infinite number of things that the Bible doesn’t mention. That doesn’t logically make it wrong on what it does mention. Actually, it is for scientific reasons that many of us believe that nuclear decay rates were faster in the past, and we can prove in the laboratory that radioactive decay rates can indeed be accelerated. Ashley seems not to know much about physics.]

My response? It wasn't
It was:
"This is when a person cannot answer the question put to him, so he tries to change the subject.”

The question did not require an answer.

But I note that my observation has been conveniently ignored all we get is bluster which fails to address how one can derive the absurd pseudo-scientific ideas put about by YECs like Jason regarding eg radioactive decay rates from the c3,000 year old book of Genesis.

“we can prove in the laboratory that radioactive decay rates can indeed be accelerated”. Earth is not a laboratory.

“Ashley seems not to know much about physics.” I know enough to know that YECs spout pseudo-scientific garbage whenever they need a rescue device – and then pretend either that their dogma is ‘science’ or that they ‘found’ it in God’s Word. I have also found that YECs are unteachable Christians (unless the teacher is another YEC of course)".




Red Herring fallacy, eh?

[a_haworthroberts]

More Lisle NONSENSE:

Him:
"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.

[Dr. Lisle: Can I expect the same type of arguments there that you use here? (Logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, evading the question, arbitrary claims, etc.)? If you really can answer my questions, I’d encourage you to post them here for all to see.]

I have also refuted there some of your many ‘behind my back’ criticisms of me made here.

[Dr. Lisle: “Behind the back” criticisms? All my responses are public and I’ve allowed you to reply. It’s not like I’m posting my replies on another website that you don’t know about. In any case, you haven’t been able to refute my claims here. So I don’t have any reason to think you’ll suddenly start being rational on another website.]

I dispute that in the instances concerned you exposed any ‘false claims’ or ‘poor reasoning’ on my part.

[Dr. Lisle: Of course you do. But you haven’t been able to offer any logical rebuttal. Ashley, a debate is not a shouting match. It’s not about who can yell the loudest, or come up with the most offensive insults. Indeed, from a rational perspective, that approach is a sure way to lose a debate. A debate is supposed to decide who has the best logical reasons for their position. I have provided reasons for the reliability of science, the reliability of senses, human rationality, moral absolutes, and so on. My position makes sense of these things. But so far, you haven’t been able to justify such things on your own worldview, yet you continue to believe in them – which is irrational. Ironically, you have demonstrated that my position is true.]

In two or three instances you did either misquote or misrepresent me – either accidentally because you were rushing or else deliberately.

[For example?...]

Also – although you knew that I am new here – you failed to inform me by mean 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.

[Dr. Lisle: I haven’t “shortened” any of your posts, though I did cut three of your attempted character assassinations since these are unethical and not permitted on my site. Actually, I probably would have allowed even those if they had been attacks on me, but I expect my guests to treat other guests respectfully; and the way you responded to Micah was very despicable, particularly in light of the gracious way he has treated you. But, otherwise, I have not edited your posts in any way. Indeed, I want people to see your arguments, because they prove my point.]

[Regarding telling people “what” they should think, isn’t that really what you are doing? You seem to want to persuade people that they should not believe in a literal Genesis , but so far you haven’t provided any cogent reasons as to why. Perhaps you are upset that I have pointed out the errors in your reasoning. But the Bible indicates that Christians are supposed to do that (2 Corinthians 10:5). Rest assured that if you continue to make bad arguments, you can continue to expect me to expose them as such. And by rejecting the biblical worldview, you have given up any moral right to criticize anyone about anything, since there is no basis for morality in a chance universe, as you have tacitly admitted.]


Me:
"PLEASE SHUT UP AND READ MY BCSE THREAD, JASON.
I HAVE ALREADY POSTED MY REBUTTALS HERE AND TOLD YOU THAT I HAD DONE SO. I SUGGEST THAT YOU STOP ATTACKING ME AND READ THEM.
I am not 'shouting', I am using capital letters for emphasis and in the hope that people will see why I am annoyed with your endless repetition of accusations that I have ALREADY dealt with here."



He is trying to get rid of me. But I have a lot of patience and plenty of time.

[a_haworthroberts]

Further arrogance from Mr Lisle:

"By rejecting the biblical worldview, you have given up any moral right to criticize anyone about anything…".

[a_haworthroberts]

I have just sent a further email:



MY EXPERIENCE OF POSTING AT YEC JASON LISLE'S BLOG PAGE

Jason Lisle (PhD astro-physicist) uses logic based arguments to defend the Bible, including young Earth creationism and a literal and historical reading of the opening chapters of Genesis, in his blog posts (where comments are permitted).

However, he believes that anyone who disagrees with his position is arbitrary and not being properly rational. If you are perceived as being 'trouble' of some kind ie not a committed young Earth creationist Christian, a few days after your posts have appeared, Jason will probably come along - without informing you ie by making a new posting which would be flagged at the top of the blog page - and annotate your posts with negative comments aimed largely at his followers (in square brackets and a different font colour). It struck me that this attempt to tell his supporters what to think of my arguments and what to think of me in general is the kind of behaviour that a cult leader would exhibit - though of course this is over the internet.

I have been asked questions such as "why would there be scientific laws in an evolutionary, chance, godless universe?" or "in an evolutionary universe why would it be wrong to lie?" - as you may guess the answers they expect to these questions are "there wouldn't" or "it wouldn't". Any other answer eg "there just are" or "deliberate lying is always wrong" is labelled 'arbitrary'. Thus when I gave the 'wrong' answer I was confirmed as being 'arbitrary' ie guilty as originally charged.

Among Jason's most recent comments on my postings he has observed "facts are only meaningful in a Christian worldview" and "by rejecting the biblical worldview, you have given up any moral right to criticize anyone about anything". He has also accused me of being ignorant about science, though he has no evidence to back that up. It would probably suit his agenda though. I also managed to commit the 'Red Herring fallacy', among others.

Unlike Jason himself, most of his blog followers are very respectful of criticism although they tend to show signs of benevolent indoctrination. However, in the early hours of today I became very exasperated with one Chris H who eg falsely accused me of 'going behind Jason's back' (with posts at the BCSE and emails) despite the fact that I clearly flagged the BCSE thread under Jason's blog post and copied my emails to the Institute for Creation Research where Jason works. I don't know what has happened in the last nine hours or so - though Jason indicated he was happy for me to post it's possible that I have now been banned for 'bad' behaviour but I was left with little choice by Chris and by Jason.

http://www.jasonlisle.com/2013/03/27/it ... gods-word/
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=30

Is this use of pseudo-intellectual 'bullying' about 'evolutionary universes' and the like Biblical and 'like' Jesus and the Christian God the Father in the 21st century? Yes, I rather think that you COULD make a case for that. The Bible is not a tolerant book. When I was an evangelical Christian doing eg street witnessing I neither tried to trap people with logic arguments nor would have been tempted to use any kind of creationist argumentation that I might have come across - what a poor Christian I was.

Mr A Haworth-Roberts

[Brian Jordan]

I haven't followed this thread very closely Ashley, so you might have answered this in passing: As Jason Lisle is an astrophysicists, what would he say to Dave1050 who doesn't believe we are made of star dust? Would he put him right, or is Jason in denial despite his training?

[Peter Henderson]

I haven't followed this thread very closely Ashley, so you might have answered this in passing: As Jason Lisle is an astrophysicists, what would he say to Dave1050 who doesn't believe we are made of star dust? Would he put him right, or is Jason in denial despite his training?

Ashley/Brian:

http://www.csharp.com/lisle.html

A couple of weeks after Jason Lisle's visit to Tucson a visitor from the University of Colorado gave a seminar on extra-solar planets in the Department of Physics at the University of Arizona. I attended the seminar because this is my area of research, then afterwards I asked the speaker if he knew Jason Lisle. It turned out that not only did he know him, he was on his Ph.D. thesis examination committee! Moreover, in common with several other people, he knew of Lisle's beliefs, although apparently Lisle's thesis advisor did not. Quite rightly, the University of Colorado awarded him a Ph.D. on the merits of his academic performance and his research, regardless of his personal beliefs.

Apparently, when asked after his thesis examination what employment he had lined up, he was very vague. Although Lisle's motives for studying for a Ph.D. cannot be proved, the suspicions I had that he had every intention from the beginning to become a professional creationist and studied for a Ph.D. to add credibility to the wider creationist community, were strengthened after my converstion with the speaker, who agreed that this was likely.

Has Lisle ever worked as an astro physicist ?

[a_haworthroberts]

My guess is that Lisle would answer the question posed by Brian by 'weaselling' that God created the stars (and the elements produced by stars) on Day Four and then created humans on Day Six using those same elements (the ones that science considers were produced by stars and in some cases only once the stars have gone supernova - earlier generation stars whose remnants presumably comprised the disk that became our solar system).

It was apparent to me from my exchanges with him that Lisle must think either that stars go supernova after less than 6,000 years or that he has a solution to the 'distant starlight' problem that can fit supernovae in OK with a 6,000 year old universe.

Does anyone know how recently Lisle completed his PhD? I haven't been able to work out his approximate age either.

[Brian Jordan]

My guess is that Lisle would answer the question posed by Brian by 'weaselling' that God created the stars (and the elements produced by stars) on Day Four and then created humans on Day Six using those same elements (the ones that science considers were produced by stars and in some cases only once the stars have gone supernova - earlier generation stars whose remnants presumably comprised the disk that became our solar system).

So regardless of his "professional" view of the Big Bang, if you're right, Ashley, he would be introducing a new problem. Not only must light cross the universe in 6000 years maximum but elements must cross a substantial part of the universe in two days! Well, two days minus the few minutes it evidently took the stars to progress from birth to becoming supernovae.
As for his age and such like, it's not found on this brief biography - which recognises the real scientific abilities that he's wasting. It did, though, amuse me with this:

A summary of some of Lisle's dumber points are outlined below.[6]
<snip>
Recession of the Moon - He is making uniformitarian assumptions about its recession rate,..

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle Isn't uniformitanrianism the last resort of an evilutionist scoundrel, according the the YECs?

[a_haworthroberts]

My guess is that Lisle would answer the question posed by Brian by 'weaselling' that God created the stars (and the elements produced by stars) on Day Four and then created humans on Day Six using those same elements (the ones that science considers were produced by stars and in some cases only once the stars have gone supernova - earlier generation stars whose remnants presumably comprised the disk that became our solar system).

So regardless of his "professional" view of the Big Bang, if you're right, Ashley, he would be introducing a new problem. Not only must light cross the universe in 6000 years maximum but elements must cross a substantial part of the universe in two days! Well, two days minus the few minutes it evidently took the stars to progress from birth to becoming supernovae.
As for his age and such like, it's not found on this brief biography - which recognises the real scientific abilities that he's wasting. It did, though, amuse me with this:

A summary of some of Lisle's dumber points are outlined below.[6]
<snip>
Recession of the Moon - He is making uniformitarian assumptions about its recession rate,..

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle Isn't uniformitanrianism the last resort of an evilutionist scoundrel, according the the YECs?

I suppose I was suggesting a sort of fudge by YECs such as Lisle whereby God created the elements in/by stars on Day Four and then created them again in humans on Day Six - and presumably also in other lifeforms created on Day Five and Day Six. Genesis does not explicitly mention creation of chemical elements, as you might expect, so YECs are free to speculate within their paradigm.

There would be a bit of a problem though IF trees also contain some chemical elements found initially in first generation stars, since trees and plants were created on Day Three.

There might be an article on the AiG or ICR website somewhere with Lisle setting out exactly what he believes about the origins of chemical elements. I do not wish to put any words into his mouth, of course.

[a_haworthroberts]

Here we go again - Lisle has crawled over my main post of yesterday:

HIM:



Dear All

Jason has been telling people what I think again. He obviously must fear…

[Dr. Lisle: “He obviously must fear” – Ashley is telling people what I think again. Interesting.]

…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.

[Dr. Lisle: That’s a bifurcation fallacy. In reality, I’m just responding to false claims (like the above claim) and pointing out fallacies. Ashley’s comments provide a wonderful opportunity for people to brush up on their fallacy-detection skills.]

Unfortunately, in this latest example or 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.

[Ashley has amply demonstrated his ignorance of science and creationist claims. His posts about the flood are fantastic examples of this. I’ll give more details below. By the way, I’m not trying to be mean. But if Ashley is going to criticize others for allegedly not understanding science, then he really should learn something about it.]

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…

[Dr. Lisle: Again, I’m just pointing out false claims and logical fallacies. Nothing more.]

, 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’.

[Again, none of Ashley’s posts were ‘edited’, unless you count the removal of his unethical character attacks on another blog visitor – and that was clearly identified as such. All of Ashley’s other posts are left untouched. I’ve graciously allowed him to post his rhetoric on my website, even though I’m under no obligation to allow such – this is my blog after all.]

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.)

[Dr. Lisle: It’s rather easy. Just copy the section you want to respond to, and post it along with your comments at the very bottom. You can use html code such as bold or italics to separate your words from the person you are replying to, or quotes (though apparently WordPress will not allow guests to use color codes.)]

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;

[Dr. Lisle: No. Only if evolution were true would science be arbitrary, because there would be no justification for the preconditions of intelligibility. But evolution isn’t true. Creation is, therefore science is not arbitrary. I really wish Ashley would stop misrepresenting me here. Ah well.]

- “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;

[Dr. Lisle: I’m perfectly satisfied that evolutionists don’t have good reasons for their beliefs. Ashley has demonstrated this repeatedly. I ask a simple question like why it is wrong to lie, and the answer I get is that it just is. Evolutionism is arbitrary.]

- “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);

[Dr. Lisle: First, evolution isn’t really a theory, because a theory has some supporting evidence. Evolution is really an unsubstantiated conjecture. Is it “part of science” as Ashley claims? Being very generous to our critics, I suppose we could call evolution a ‘model’ in the scientific sense of a mental construct that attempts to explain some aspect of the universe, albeit a rather unhelpful one.]

[I want to take some time on this one, because it is at the heart of the issue. Does science presuppose naturalism? Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that there is – everything that exists is matter (or energy) in motion. Ashley is correct that evolution is predicated on this assumption. But is science? Well no. Although the methods of science are not equipped perhaps to study supernatural phenomena, there is nothing about the scientific method that requires the non-existence of supernatural phenomena. Just as laws of mathematics are not equipped to address moral claims, yet they do not disprove the existence of morality.]

[Does science require uniformity in nature? Yes! And not just “where the evidence observed today points to such” as Ashley stated. All scientific observations presuppose that the universe operates in a regular fashion, at least most of the time if not all of the time. Our visual observations presuppose that light (normally) travels in straight paths, as one example. Experimentation would be utterly useless if the universe had no uniformity; there would be no consistency, no patterns to uncover.]

[Can we have confidence that such uniformity extends to unobserved, unexperienced, regions of the universe, and future times? Science requires this to be true in order to function. But is such a belief warranted? Do we have a good reason for it? If creation is true, then yes. God is sovereign over the entire universe, even unobserved regions, and He has promised to uphold the future universe like the past universe (e.g. Genesis 8:22). Therefore, we creationists have a logical basis for uniformity, and therefore we can have confidence in science. But if evolution were true, and Genesis is false or mere allegory, then what is the basis for assuming uniformity in unexperienced regions or future times? It does no good to say that we have uniformity in the past and in observed regions, because this would be utterly irrelevant to future times or unobserved regions unless we already had a good reason to believe in uniformity. Therefore, although scientific procedures may not be equipped to study the supernatural realm, they require the existence of the biblical God in order to be logically justified! Science would be meaningless in a chance universe.]

[And what about uniformitarianism? This is the belief that rates and conditions are generally constant, such that Earth’s features have been generated (for the most part) at their present slow rates, presumably over long periods of time. Evolution does presuppose uniformitarianism. But there is nothing in science that requires it. The methods of science presuppose that laws of nature do not arbitrarily change, but they do allow conditions to change drastically. As one example, the rate at which Rhenium decays into Osmium can vary by a factor of billion depending on the ionization state of the atoms, but the laws of physics remain the same. We know that rates can vary by enormous amounts depending on the conditions. Yet evolutionists often assume constancy of rates, without any compelling reasons. This is arbitrary.]

- “Evolution is not compatible with the notion of universal invariant laws of mathematics”. Unsupported, arbitrary assertion and part of Jason’s ‘rhetoric’.

[Actually, I did provide reasons, and have even written an article on this: http://www.youroriginsmatter.com/conver ... ry-math/95.
Evolution requires change, but laws of mathematics do not change. They are opposites, and so I want to know how evolutionists can justify invariant laws in an ever-changing universe. How could anyone possibly know that anything is truly universal and invariant apart from God’s Word? However, I want to commend Ashley for pointing out what he thought was an unsupported arbitrary assertion – indeed if it had been, it would be perfectly rational to point it out and dismiss it as unwarranted.]

Brief comments on Lisle’s rather ridiculous claims:
- “The circular nature of Ashley’s reasoning is easily exposed.” There wasn’t any;

[Well, now we’re back to arbitrary claims I see. The context of this quote was where Ashley was trying to argue against the worldwide flood by pointing out that organisms that are considered to be older by evolutionists are found lower in the geologic column than those that are younger. But if the worldwide flood really happened, then these organisms were buried within the same year. By assuming the evolutionist’s assigned age, Ashley had already tacitly assumed that there was no worldwide flood. He then used this as evidence against the worldwide flood. This of course begs the question. Ashley’s reasoning is circular. By the way, how do evolutionists estimate which organisms are the older ones? They assume that those found in deeper layers are older. So it shouldn’t be surprising that they find ‘older’ fossils in lower layers, since lower layers are presumed to be the oldest. The reasoning is clearly circular.]

- “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);

[No – this is a straw-man argument because this is not what creationists would expect. All fossils are found on land, even those of marine organisms. Ashley seems to be assuming that land levels have never changed, but neither creationists nor evolutionists believe that. We do not find terrestrial fossils in the lower parts of the geologic column, because the lower parts of the geologic column contain fossils only of ocean dwelling organisms.]

- “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.

[No – it confirms creation. Organisms that live in higher ecological zones, and are more mobile, would be buried higher in a worldwide flood – and this is exactly what we find.]

My comment in question referred to higher ALTITUDE. Does he think I am stupid?;

[I suspected that Ashley doesn’t understand the geologic column, and this confirms it. No, organisms in any portion of the geologic column can be found at virtually any altitude today. There are marine fossils on the highest mountain tops. And fossilized birds can be found at lower altitudes. Cambrian strata, as one example, are not found at the same altitudes throughout the world because of tectonic activity. The elevation of any particular piece of land today is not necessarily what it was before the flood.]

- “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 was responding to the AiG claim that “Those things in habitats first to be overwhelmed would generally occupy lower positions in the geologic column.” That’s right, “lower positions.” Ashley responded, “that makes little sense.” In fact, it makes perfect sense that organisms buried first in the flood would be those in lower positions in the geologic column. Ashley’s objection makes no sense.]

- “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);

[In context, this was in response to Ashley’s claim that “Surely what would matter more would be altitude (the same then as now).” But creationists do not teach that altitude (in the sense of elevation from sea level) of rocks has always been the same. By the way, neither do evolutionists. Ashley’s claim was simply false.]

[Ashley made another false claim here in saying that I somehow admitted that “YECs teach falsehoods.” Where I did say or even remotely imply that? Of course, in an evolutionary universe, why shouldn’t they? Morality presupposes a creationist worldview.]

- “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?

[This is the fallacy of the complex question, since creationists are not antagonistic towards science. It’s also a red herring fallacy. Ashley was unable to rationally answer the argument put to him, so he changes the subject, and suggests that YECs are antagonistic toward science. However, I am not aware of a single biblical creationist who is against science. Most of the ones I know have a Ph.D. in science.]

Comments on Lisle.
- “he seems to think that creationists are against real science”. They frequently are;

[Once again Ashley provides no evidence to back up his (false) claim.]

- “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;

[We’ve seen Ashley’s emotional reaction. But we haven’t seen him put forward any logical reasons yet.]

- “No one has ever rejected the claims of Christianity for logical reasons.” Jason is assuming that the science which YECs reject is ‘illogical’;

[Actually, I’m not aware of any science that creationists reject. There are false claims that we reject, but not science. In any case, I have yet to hear or read a logical objection to Christianity.]

- “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.

[“is not interested in truth just in propaganda and stereotyping of his critics.” – oh the irony. Notice that Ashley appeals to his friends and people on the BCSE to indicate that he knows science, many of whom undoubtedly share his lack of education. I would be far more impressed if he actually got some education in science, say a Ph.D. in a branch of science from a major university. In any case, Ashley’s misunderstanding of the geologic column, of the nature of science, and so on amply demonstrate that he really hasn’t studied this subject very much. I’m not trying to be mean-spirited, it’s just pretty obvious to all of us who have studied science.]

They look at evidence alone, assuming that what they see means something – they DON’T also look at religious texts like the YECs do.

[In “assuming that what they see means something” they are not relying on evidence alone, but are relying on a worldview. In a chance universe, there would be no reason to think that evidence means anything. There would be no reason to rely on our senses, or our mind, or any physical evidence at all. Science presupposes a Christian worldview.]

[Also, is it rational for a scientist to ignore recorded history when attempting to reconstruct a past event? Ashley admits that evolutionists don’t rely on “religious texts,” but if they reject the recorded history in the Bible and choose to rely on guesswork instead, then that’s really illogical.]

They operate on naturalism

[Well, that’s not “evidence alone” since naturalism is a belief that nature is all that there is. We’ve already seen that naturalism would make science unjustified and meaningless, so I won’t repeat the argument here.]

(that is silent on the existence of God as God apparently does ‘natural’ things).

[Actually, naturalism denies the existence of the biblical God. This is because naturalism is the belief that nature is all there is, but the biblical God is not part of nature; He is transcendent.]

And they don’t always assume uniformitarianism.

[That’s actually true. I have found that evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when it gives them the answers they want, and reject it otherwise. This of course is arbitrary (and inconsistent). All arguments for an old earth do 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;

[The evidence would be that Ashley commits almost every fallacy that I’ve written about in my book “Discerning Truth.” His fallacy of complex question, “why are YECs so ANTAGONISTIC towards science?” is almost verbatim from page 39. His reification fallacies involving what “science says” are from page 16. His equivocation with science and evolution is right from page 22. His attempt to justify uniformity by assuming it is right from page 30. Ashley’s multiple question-begging epithets could have been taken right from page 36. The ad hominem attacks could be right from page 50. Ashley’s faulty appeals to authority is almost verbatim from page 57. The straw-man attacks are nearly identical to those listed on pate 62. His No True Scotsman fallacies are right from page 78. It’s almost as if I took all those fallacies, and then posted them pretending to be an evolutionist, as if to show people, “yes evolutionists really do commit all sorts of errors in reasoning.” Trolling happens. I just wanted people to know that this is not the case here.]

- “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;

[Apologetics IS as disproof of evolution. But people are not always persuaded even by a perfectly good argument. Ashley has demonstrated this. He cannot refute the fact that only the Christian worldview can justify laws of logic, laws of morality, laws of nature, and their properties. Yet he continues to deny the Christian worldview. Why?]

[The Bible gives us the answer. The Bible tells us that God has revealed himself inescapably to all people, such that there is no excuse for denying creation (Romans 1:19-20). But people do not want to accept a God who is rightly angry at them for their sin. So they suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18).]

- “How does he know – on his worldview – that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging?” The question is STUPID;

[Ashley’s response is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. Ashley does assume that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging. But he cannot justify that belief on his own worldview. He cannot answer the question, so he arbitrarily dismisses it. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of such things. But Ashley would prefer to live in darkness rather than light (John 3:19).]

- “It appears that he is indeed quite indoctrinated with evolutionism/naturalism.” Said the anti-science fundamentalist.

[Another question-begging epithet fallacy. Also a straw-man argument. I have an earned doctorate in science, and my worldview can make sense of science.]

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.

[Actually, Robert had won the debate by pointing out that Ashley’s position is self-contradictory. Ashley simultaneously indicated that we should go with what the majority of scientists believe, and we should not go with what the majority of scientists believe. Robert was graciously giving Ashley the opportunity to explain under what circumstances should we accept the opinions of the majority of scientists, and under what circumstances we should not. Ashley could not answer Robert’s question. Check it out above, beginning with Robert’s post, “Ashley, To clarify your position,…”]

[Of course, Ashley also commits the abusive ad hominem fallacy. But for the sake of argument, why in his worldview would lying be wrong? Why would it be unacceptable for one bag of chemicals to mislead another bag of chemicals? Ashley hasn’t been able to provide a reason for this so far. But rational people have a reason for their beliefs.]

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”

[Hardly. Robert’s question was profound because it exposed the self-contradictory nature of Ashley’s worldview. Namely, we are supposed to accept what the majority of scientists, except when we’re not supposed to do that. It was perfectly legitimate to ask, “when should we accept the scientific consensus, and when should we reject it?” Ashley cannot answer that simple question, so he merely engages in emotional rhetoric.]

and added “The opinion that Earth was flat was pre-scientific – I cannot believe he is such an idiot not to realise that”;

[{Sigh.} More abusive ad hominem fallacies.]

- Jason’s talk of ‘character assassination’ is utter hypocrisy given his comments in square brackets.

[Here Ashley commits the tu quoque fallacy. A character assassination would be like saying “Ashley is a LIAR and a bigot.” I don’t think I’ve said anything like that. I believe that Ashley is mistaken of course. But that’s not a character assassination.]

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;

[Irony. Ashley is the one engaging in abusive ad hominem attacks. The creationists who have responded to him on this site have been far better-behaved. Is it really too much to ask Ashley to behave himself when posting on this blog, and not to engage in childish name-calling?]

- “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;

[Actually, there is abundant evidence that radioactive decay rates can change (like the fact that we’ve been able to speed up radioactive decay in the laboratory by a factor of a billion). And there is abundant evidence that this has happened in the past, such as the fact that we find abundant helium (the bi-product of alpha decay) in rock layers where the helium would have had plenty of time to escape if it had been there for billions of years. This shows that (1) lots of radioactive decay has happened and (2) it has happened in the geologically ‘recent’ past. Regarding habitability, it’s not a problem because most of the accelerated decay happened early in the creation week before life, or during the flood year when organisms would have been insulated from radioactivity by a mile of water. So Ashley’s claim is unwarranted. If Ashley (or others) would like to learn about the research that confirms this, I recommend the RATE books, volume I and II, or the layman-level summary: Thousands not Billions.]

- “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;

[This again is the No True Scotsman fallacy. And Ashley’s claim is demonstrably false. As far as I know, all my professors at the University of Colorado are not biblical creationists, and yet I did very well in their classes, and they agreed that my scientific research was excellent, and that I had earned a Ph.D. in astrophysics. Ashley also repeats his false claim that creationists reject swathes of science. I’m not aware of any creationist who rejects 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.

[Sure they do. What made Ashley think otherwise? Can Ashley answer that without begging the question (assuming evolutionist assumptions in order to prove them)?]

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.

[Now there’s an ironic claim if ever there was one. I’ve backed up my claims with rational reasons. Has Ashley?]

But I am sorry to inform you that Micah DID read it. Others may have done so too.

[That’s fine. I trust that anyone trained in logic will be able to evaluate Ashley’s claims for what they are.]

Perhaps your followers are more open-minded than you?

[If only we were all as open-minded as Ashley. ]

- “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;

[In context, this was a reference to Ashley’s claim that “[creationists] are deluded.” He didn’t provide any support for that claim. It was arbitrary, which is irrational.]

- “He says “it just is”.” That WAS my answer, Jason. Deal with it;

[Arbitrariness is not rational. If we allow arbitrariness in debates, then Creation is true. Why? It just is – deal with it. Ashley has amply demonstrated that he doesn’t have any good reasons for his position. He says it just is that way, and we’re apparently supposed to accept that response. To be arbitrary in a debate is to concede defeat.]

- “We love science”. Creation science is not science.

[{sigh} Another No True Scotsman fallacy.]

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

[Ashley commits lots of fallacies and is arbitrary. Why is he angry at me for pointing it out? And none of this was done “behind [Ashley’s] back.” It’s not like I’ve posted this on another website. It’s here for all to see, including Ashley.]

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

[Yes Ashley. Thank you for posting.]

[a_haworthroberts]

MY REPLY:


"Jason (annotations to my post at 4.28 pm yesterday)

"Dr. Lisle: “He obviously must fear” – Ashley is telling people what I think again. Interesting." Yes, it's quite hard not to do back what is done to you in this regard.

"Ashley has amply demonstrated his ignorance of science and creationist claims. His posts about the flood are fantastic examples of this." I look forward to seeing Jason's further comments since I know that I am NOT ignorant of science, NOT ignorant of creationism and NOT ignorant of YEC flood hypotheses. I do think it is in your interests to seek to portray me as 'ignorant' (Jonathan Sarfati has tried the very same tactic but he refused to refute my review of his book at Amazon.com which is odd if my 2010 review was written when I was even more 'ignorant' than now). (In my experience of reading their online articles, YEC spokespeople also just love reminding lesser mortals of their own 'authority' and their academic qualifications.)

"I really wish Ashley would stop misrepresenting me here". With respect, you need to READ/RE-READ my post at 10.22 am yesterday. If I accidentally 'misrepresented' you, it is because you are SLIPPERY with definitions ie for you 'science' is your own YEC apologetics and not the mainstream science which you often dogmatically reject. If your words had been clearer I would not have misconstrued what you were trying to say in your blog.

"Science would be meaningless in a chance universe." I very much doubt it. (Go on - call me 'arbitrary' again, but you cannot prove anything either way.)

"Yet evolutionists often assume constancy of rates, without any compelling reasons." UNTRUE.

"By assuming the evolutionist’s assigned age, Ashley had already tacitly assumed that there was no worldwide flood. He then used this as evidence against the worldwide flood. This of course begs the question. Ashley’s reasoning is circular." LIAR. My disbelief in a 'recent' and 'worldwide' flood is most certainly NOT based on 'circular reasoning'. Once again Jason is presuming to know what I think and trying to portray me as foolish or deceived. Standard Christian fundamentalist fare.

And is THAT how I have allegedly displayed 'ignorance'? Gosh.

"All fossils are found on land, even those of marine organisms." No, they are NOT. A large fossil was found whilst the Channel Tunnel was being dug between England and France. As far as I know it was found below the sea rather than near either tunnel entrance. If that is correct, who is being ignorant now?
http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread. ... unnel-1991

"Ashley seems to be assuming that land levels have never changed". What gave you that idea. I know it is false. But I also know there has been little change in the last 6,000 years.

I am trying to do you a favour in telling you that I DO know some science and about 'creation science' claims too, so it is probably best not to underestimate me.

"No – it confirms creation." But you HAVEN'T told me why it 'doesn't' support an old Earth and evolution. I await your answer to that.

"There are marine fossils on the highest mountain tops." Yes, these would be at the top of the geologic column there. What is your point? "Cambrian strata, as one example, are not found at the same altitudes throughout the world because of tectonic activity". Where did I suggest otherwise?

"“Surely what would matter more would be altitude (the same then as now).” But creationists do not teach that altitude (in the sense of elevation from sea level) of rocks has always been the same. By the way, neither do evolutionists. Ashley’s claim was simply false." Oh no it was NOT. With the odd local exception, altitude levels have been approximately the same during the past 6,000 years, including when this flood is meant to have occurred. I don't care if YECs teach something different (I never said they don't) because they are plain wrong. The comment about evolutionists is a red herring with respect to the last 6,000 years. Shock horror, Jason is committing one of his own fallacies.

Like I said previously, and now repeat, YECs like Jason teach falsehoods - and when exposed they falsely accuse their critics of lying into the bargain. That's just the way things are.

"Ashley was unable to rationally answer the argument put to him, so he changes the subject, and suggests that YECs are antagonistic toward science. However, I am not aware of a single biblical creationist who is against science." Changing definitions of words mid-argument is what Jonathan Sarfati calls EQUIVOCATION, Jason. What I call science is what YOU reject as science - your claimed science is NOT 'my' science (in case you hadn't noticed).

"Notice that Ashley appeals to his friends and people on the BCSE to indicate that he knows science, many of whom undoubtedly share his lack of education. I would be far more impressed if he actually got some education in science, say a Ph.D. in a branch of science from a major university. In any case, Ashley’s misunderstanding of the geologic column, of the nature of science, and so on amply demonstrate that he really hasn’t studied this subject very much." It's fascinating to see how you are stumbling around in the dark, and desperately attempting to discredit me. Your behaviour is also a little reminiscent of leaders of cults that I have heard about - you seem to regard my comments as a challenge to your authority, which of course they are because I think you are in error in your apologetics.

You did not demonstrate any misunderstanding on my part about the geologic column.

"In a chance universe, there would be no reason to think that evidence means anything." Yet another unproven and probably unprovable assertion.

"I have found that evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when it gives them the answers they want, and reject it otherwise." Another desperate bid to try and portray evolutionists as 'arbitrary' in their science. By the way, what does Jason invoke when considering the recession of the Moon from the Earth?

"The evidence would be that Ashley commits almost every fallacy that I’ve written about in my book “Discerning Truth.”" Which I most certainly have not read (I've seen Amazon.com reviews of it, and don't wish to read it based on those reviews - make of that what you want).

I suspect that some readers of this blog may consider my arguments regardless of whether they contain what YOU consider fallacies.

"Ashley’s response is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. Ashley does assume that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging. But he cannot justify that belief on his own worldview. He cannot answer the question, so he arbitrarily dismisses it." Yep, I DO. It's hot air, Jason.

"I have an earned doctorate in science, and my worldview can make sense of science." Humble with it too I see.

"Robert had won the debate by pointing out that Ashley’s position is self-contradictory...". If that is so, he is less arrogant than you.

"Robert’s question was profound because it exposed the self-contradictory nature of Ashley’s worldview." It was not and it did NO such thing. He was trying to argue that because an ancient PRE-scientific idea (that Earth is flat) turned out to be false therefore we should actively doubt what evolutionists today consider, based on real evidence and on other scientific knowledge and observation, to be true.

The reason I accused Jason of 'character assassination' was as much because he chose to post about me 'behind my back' as because of what he actually alleged or told his followers to think. As I explained IN DETAIL here on 19 April: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=30

"The creationists who have responded to him on this site have been far better-behaved." The 'demonising' comment which you are reacting to referred to YOU. And I DID state that I did not object to the 'tone' of other participants (that was before some heated posts with 'Chris H' last night).

"Actually, there is abundant evidence that radioactive decay rates can change." No, there isn't. I've looked into this topic already, posted about it on the BCSE website and touched on it in my detailed review of Sarfati's book. It's a YEC ad hoc RESCUE DEVICE ie it has to be the RIGHT 'change' not just any 'change'. That isn't science it's make-believe.

"Sure they do." Your evidence that many millions of years is not required, please. If you have it. Preferably evidence peer reviewed by the international scientific community (which includes Christians and theists who are not YECs and who believe naturalism is fine when doing science). After all, you must have a REASON because you say it is wrong to be 'arbitrary'.

"anyone trained in logic ...". Trained to be hung up about logic, and to reject anything deemed illogical or arbitrary, regardless of whether it has any scientific merit.

"If only we were all as open-minded as Ashley." More open-minded than YOU.

"And none of this was done “behind [Ashley’s] back." YES IT WAS - as I explained at the BCSE thread.

[a_haworthroberts]

Before deciding that it is very sensible to ignore him from now on, I again called Chris H (the worst person on Jason's site other than Jason and by a long way) a 'disgusting liar' after he absurdly wrote: "Just because you define science to be “secular” science and creationists as “religious” science, that actually means that you yourself are the one equivocating on the term because the term science does not mean the same thing inside your argument when you use it as applying to creationists as applying to secularists. Dr. Lisle on the other hand uses science the same way for both parties, he is simply criticizing the fantasy of common descent".

Jason CENSORED my post and scolded me saying: "Again, Ashley has violated the rules regarding no character attacks on this site".

Up yours, Jason.

I have tried to reply as follows, only to discover that my post 'awaits moderation':
"You are a hypocritical Christian Jason, because Chris H (unlike most of the other contributors I have to say) lies about me. And I point this out and guess who gets censored?
I suggest that the behaviour indulged in by both of you here would only convince a person who was either highly dishonest or blinded by prejudice."



IT WOULD SEEM THAT ALL ONLINE YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS REALLY ARE LIARS FOR JESUS. THEY ARE EVIL.

[a_haworthroberts]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3237&start=30
And now Jason appears to be censoring the re-posting of this link.

YECS HAVE NO COHERENT ARGUMENT FROM SCIENCE WHICH IS WHY - SOONER OR LATER - THEY WILL INEVITABLY RESORT TO CENSORSHIP OF CRITICISM. EVERY TIME.

NASTY INTOLERANT BIGOTS FOR JESUS.

[a_haworthroberts]

Jason (annotations to my post at 4.28 pm yesterday)

“Dr. Lisle: “He obviously must fear” – Ashley is telling people what I think again. Interesting.” Yes, it’s quite hard not to do back what is done to you in this regard.

“Ashley has amply demonstrated his ignorance of science and creationist claims. His posts about the flood are fantastic examples of this.” I look forward to seeing Jason’s further comments since I know that I am NOT ignorant of science, NOT ignorant of creationism and NOT ignorant of YEC flood hypotheses.

[Dr. Lisle: Ashley doesn’t seem to realize the circular nature of his claim. How can he be sure that he knows science? Apparently, because he knows that he is NOT ignorant of science. This is the fallacy of begging the question.]

I do think it is in your interests to seek to portray me as ‘ignorant’ (Jonathan Sarfati has tried the very same tactic but he refused to refute my review of his book at Amazon.com which is odd if my 2010 review was written when I was even more ‘ignorant’ than now). (In my experience of reading their online articles, YEC spokespeople also just love reminding lesser mortals of their own ‘authority’ and their academic qualifications.)

[I’m not trying to portray Ashley as ignorant. He may know a lot about certain things. Just not science or logic.]

“I really wish Ashley would stop misrepresenting me here”. With respect, you need to READ/RE-READ my post at 10.22 am yesterday. If I accidentally ‘misrepresented’ you, it is because you are SLIPPERY with definitions ie for you ‘science’ is your own YEC apologetics and not the mainstream science which you often dogmatically reject. If your words had been clearer I would not have misconstrued what you were trying to say in your blog.

[{sigh} I guess there is no reason why an evolutionist shouldn’t misrepresent creationists, since there is no rational basis for morality on an evolutionary worldview.]

“Science would be meaningless in a chance universe.” I very much doubt it. (Go on – call me ‘arbitrary’ again, but you cannot prove anything either way.)

[How can you have any objective meaning in a chance universe? How could you have any confidence that your senses evolved in such a way as to be “truthful?” If Ashley thinks such things could be made sense of in a chance universe, then let him give some reason. IF not, then he’s being, well, arbitrary. Again this demonstrates my point that evolutionists do not have good reasons for their beliefs.]

“Yet evolutionists often assume constancy of rates, without any compelling reasons.” UNTRUE.

[Arbitrary.]

“By assuming the evolutionist’s assigned age, Ashley had already tacitly assumed that there was no worldwide flood. He then used this as evidence against the worldwide flood. This of course begs the question. Ashley’s reasoning is circular.” LIAR. My disbelief in a ‘recent’ and ‘worldwide’ flood is most certainly NOT based on ‘circular reasoning’.

[Actually, Ashley’s argument in this example was that the worldwide flood can’t explain why we find older fossils in lower layers than younger fossils. But in assuming the evolutionary age of these fossils (that they really are millions of years different in age), he has already tacitly assumed the global flood is false, since the global flood would deposit most of the geologic column in one year. His reasoning is indeed circular. In fact, a lot of Ashley’s arguments have begged the question.]

Once again Jason is presuming to know what I think and trying to portray me as foolish or deceived. Standard Christian fundamentalist fare.

[Ashley revealed his thoughts by his words. I just assumed he wasn’t lying, and took his words to accurately reflect his thoughts.]

And is THAT how I have allegedly displayed ‘ignorance’? Gosh.

[Ashley seems to not know much about geology, or creation, or logic. In a debate, it is considered fallacious to arbitrarily assume your conclusion as part of the proof for it. So for example, assuming that fossils were deposited over millions of years instead of a worldwide flood cannot be used as evidence against a worldwide flood.]

“All fossils are found on land, even those of marine organisms.” No, they are NOT. A large fossil was found whilst the Channel Tunnel was being dug between England and France. As far as I know it was found below the sea rather than near either tunnel entrance. If that is correct, who is being ignorant now?
http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread. ... unnel-1991

[Okay Ashley, I misspoke. I should have said virtually all. Yes, the vast majority of fossils that we find ( 95% of which are marine organisms) are found on the continents. Interesting isn’t it? If I were trying to argue against a worldwide flood, that evidence would really bother me.]

“Ashley seems to be assuming that land levels have never changed”. What gave you that idea. I know it is false.

[What gave me that idea is Ashley’s comments about altitude rather than position in the geologic column being where he would expect to find specific fossils. For example, he said, “Do we find modern species eg ape-like creatures – and also birds for that matter – only fossilised at higher altitude, as the YEC ‘head for the hills’ hypothesis would imply?” But a creationist would not assume that organisms that were killed and buried at higher altitudes are necessarily at higher altitudes today. The rock layers have shifted. Cambrian strata in one location on Earth might occur at a very different altitude than those at another location. So Ashley was mistaken in thinking that fossil birds would only be found at higher altitudes in the creation model. He has committed a straw-man argument, though I think it was probably unintentional. ]

But I also know there has been little change in the last 6,000 years.

[This is the fallacy of begging the question. The global flood radically changed Earth’s topography, pushing continents apart, and building mountains (e.g. Psalm 104:8). Only if we assume that the global flood didn’t happen, and embrace uniformitarianism, would we ever conclude that “there has been little change in the last 6000 years.” And so this assumption can hardly be used as evidence against the global flood without begging the question.]

I am trying to do you a favour in telling you that I DO know some science and about ‘creation science’ claims too, so it is probably best not to underestimate me.

[I don’t mean to disparage Ashley in any way, but he really hasn’t studied this issue at all. He may have read what other vocal evolutionist have written, but he is not up on the science, and certainly not up on the creationist literature, as his posts have demonstrated. Dr. Snelling’s Books “Earth’s Catastrophic Past” volume I and II would be a great place for Ashley to start, to learn about geology, and the creationist understanding of the evidence.]

“No – it confirms creation.” But you HAVEN’T told me why it ‘doesn’t’ support an old Earth and evolution. I await your answer to that.

[There are a lot of different lines of evidence I could present – and many of these are found in Dr. Snelling’s book. But as one quick example, c-14 has been found in virtually all fossils that have sufficient carbon remaining in them – no matter how far down in the geologic column. Since c-14 cannot last even one million years, this indicates that the entire geologic column is ‘recent.’]

[As another example, footprints of organisms are systematically found lower in the geologic column than their fossilized bodies. That makes sense in terms of a global flood – organisms struggling to escape rising flood waters, and then eventually drowning, and getting buried at a later time, and therefore a higher layer. But if the layers were deposited over millions of years, then how can organisms make footprints, and then die and be buried millions of years later?]

[The Coconino sandstone for example, has footprints of vertebrate organisms, tracks that are not aligned with the direction of the feet (as if the animals were being swept by current), toes angled downward (tippy-toed) as if trying to reach the bottom surface, and yet their fossilized bodies are not found! Isn’t that interesting? That’s hard to explain in a millions-of-years timescale – all kinds of tracks, and yet nothing ever died, apparently. There are many other examples. But this is why I pointed out that Ashley really hasn’t studied up on these things.]

“There are marine fossils on the highest mountain tops.” Yes, these would be at the top of the geologic column there.

[No, they are not at the top of the geologic column (Quaternary). There are crinoid fossils on Everest, which indicates Permain layer at best. This is upper Paleozoic – the lowest of the three main divisions of the fossil-bearing rock layers.]

What is your point?

[That current altitudes do not correspond to the altitude when the fossil was formed. In the biblical worldview, these fossils would have been deposited early in the flood, and then the mountain ranges were pushed up toward the end of the flood year. This was to refute Ashley’s claim that creationists should expect to find ‘modern’ species only at higher altitudes, and by implication ‘ancient’ species only at lower altitudes. The altitude at the time of formation does not necessarily correlate with the present altitude in either creationist or evolutionist thinking.]

“Cambrian strata, as one example, are not found at the same altitudes throughout the world because of tectonic activity”. Where did I suggest otherwise?

[When Ashley writes, “Surely what would matter more would be altitude (the same then as now)”, is he not pretty clearly indicating that he believes altitudes would be the same before and after the flood?]

““Surely what would matter more would be altitude (the same then as now).” But creationists do not teach that altitude (in the sense of elevation from sea level) of rocks has always been the same. By the way, neither do evolutionists. Ashley’s claim was simply false.”

Oh no it was NOT. With the odd local exception, altitude levels have been approximately the same during the past 6,000 years, including when this flood is meant to have occurred.

[Fallacy of begging the question. Ashley assumes there is no global flood that would have involved massive tectonic activity, pushing up mountains and pushing apart continents, and then argues that this proves that the altitude levels have always been the same. It is just amazing to me that Ashley doesn’t see that his reasoning is circular.]

I don’t care if YECs teach something different (I never said they don’t) because they are plain wrong. The comment about evolutionists is a red herring with respect to the last 6,000 years. Shock horror, Jason is committing one of his own fallacies.

[Ashley has again begged the question. He is assuming that there was no massive catastrophe in the last 6000 years, and then argues that this proves there was no massive catastrophe in the last 6000 years. By the way, a red herring is an irrelevant point to dodge a question. That’s not the case here. In this case, it was very relevant to point out that neither creationists nor evolutionists believe that fossils were deposited at the same altitudes at which they are found – thereby exposing Ashley’s claim as a straw-man argument.]

Like I said previously, and now repeat, YECs like Jason teach falsehoods – and when exposed they falsely accuse their critics of lying into the bargain. That’s just the way things are.

[And what would be the evidence for that claim?]

“Ashley was unable to rationally answer the argument put to him, so he changes the subject, and suggests that YECs are antagonistic toward science. However, I am not aware of a single biblical creationist who is against science.” Changing definitions of words mid-argument is what Jonathan Sarfati calls EQUIVOCATION, Jason. What I call science is what YOU reject as science – your claimed science is NOT ‘my’ science (in case you hadn’t noticed).

[Ashley seems to be projecting. I am, and always have, used the standard dictionary definition of science: “1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”]

[Nonetheless, it is indeed possible that Ashley has a different meaning in his head. ‘Science’ to him seems to mean “my opinions and beliefs about things, especially evolution.” That would explain why he keeps repeating the false claim that creationists are against science. After all, we don’t accept Ashley’s beliefs about things, and we don’t accept molecules-to-man evolution. But that’s because no one can provide good reasons to believe in evolution. Evolutionists are very arbitrary when it comes to their worldview. We’ve seen Ashley demonstrate this over and over.]

“Notice that Ashley appeals to his friends and people on the BCSE to indicate that he knows science, many of whom undoubtedly share his lack of education. I would be far more impressed if he actually got some education in science, say a Ph.D. in a branch of science from a major university. In any case, Ashley’s misunderstanding of the geologic column, of the nature of science, and so on amply demonstrate that he really hasn’t studied this subject very much.” It’s fascinating to see how you are stumbling around in the dark, and desperately attempting to discredit me. Your behaviour is also a little reminiscent of leaders of cults that I have heard about – you seem to regard my comments as a challenge to your authority, which of course they are because I think you are in error in your apologetics.

[I suspect that most readers of this blog will readily see that Ashley has pretty well discredited himself. I just asked him to defend his position and to be logical. When he couldn’t do that, his beliefs were revealed to be without any rational foundation. I appreciate that Ashley believes in evolution very strongly. But what we’ve been asking for is logical reasons for that belief. We’ve asked him to explain how science and logic and morality would even be possible in an evolutionary universe. Is it so much to ask a person to give a simple reason for his beliefs? But Ashley’s response: “It just is.” But that isn’t a reason.]

You did not demonstrate any misunderstanding on my part about the geologic column.

[Well, I think we all now can see that Ashley had some whopping big misunderstandings about the geologic column. So I won’t add anything else here.]

“In a chance universe, there would be no reason to think that evidence means anything.” Yet another unproven and probably unprovable assertion.

[Then perhaps Ashley would care to explain how evidence could have objective meaning in a chance universe. How can evidence mean anything if we cannot trust our senses or our brain? And how could we trust our senses and brain if they are just chemical accidents? Ashley just cannot answer these simple questions. It really shows the utter bankruptcy of the evolutionary worldview.]

“I have found that evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when it gives them the answers they want, and reject it otherwise.” Another desperate bid to try and portray evolutionists as ‘arbitrary’ in their science.

[Evolutionists are arbitrary in their reasoning – Ashley has demonstrated that beyond any doubt. He just can’t give reasons for his beliefs.]

By the way, what does Jason invoke when considering the recession of the Moon from the Earth?

[Ashley seems to think that the way to debate is to simply arbitrarily assume your position, and then show how you can prove that position by first assuming it. But this is the fallacy of begging the question. The rational way to debate is to assume – for the sake of hypothesis – your opponent’s position, and show that it leads to a contradictory result. So if we want to prove that the evolutionists are wrong about the age of the earth-moon system, the rational way to do it is to take their assumptions for the sake of argument (naturalism and uniformitarianism) and show that even if those assumptions were true, the moon and earth cannot be as old as evolutionists teach. This shows that the evolutionary worldview is self-contradictory, and therefore false. If you arbitrarily assume your own position in arguing for your position, this proves nothing – it just begs the question.]

“The evidence would be that Ashley commits almost every fallacy that I’ve written about in my book “Discerning Truth.”” Which I most certainly have not read (I’ve seen Amazon.com reviews of it, and don’t wish to read it based on those reviews – make of that what you want).

[It doesn’t surprise me that Ashley hasn’t read the creationist literature on this topic. But even if he didn’t like my book, it addresses the same fallacies that are discussed on any textbook on logic.]

I suspect that some readers of this blog may consider my arguments regardless of whether they contain what YOU consider fallacies.

[Fallacies are not subjective. They are objective errors in reasoning, and any decent textbook on logic will discuss them. I always encourage people to study logic and logical fallacies. It will really help sharpen your thinking. Then take a look at Ashley’s comments on this site. See how many fallacies you can find. It’s a great learning exercise.]

“Ashley’s response is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. Ashley does assume that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging. But he cannot justify that belief on his own worldview. He cannot answer the question, so he arbitrarily dismisses it.” Yep, I DO. It’s hot air, Jason.

[Laws of mathematics are all “hot air?” If laws of mathematics are not universal and unchanging, then we have no good reason to depend upon them. That’s rather important! Of course Ashley believes that laws of mathematics are universal and unchanging. He just doesn’t have a reason for that belief. So again, this establishes my point. Evolutionists are not rational when it comes to origins. They just don’t have good reasons for their beliefs. And apparently, they don’t have a problem with that (unless of course their opponents were to be arbitrary.)]

“I have an earned doctorate in science, and my worldview can make sense of science.” Humble with it too I see.

[This was in response to Ashley’s claim that I am “anti-science.” It exposes his claim as false and rather silly.]

“Robert had won the debate by pointing out that Ashley’s position is self-contradictory…”. If that is so, he is less arrogant than you.

[abusive ad hominem fallacy]

“Robert’s question was profound because it exposed the self-contradictory nature of Ashley’s worldview.” It was not and it did NO such thing. He was trying to argue that because an ancient PRE-scientific idea (that Earth is flat) turned out to be false therefore we should actively doubt what evolutionists today consider, based on real evidence and on other scientific knowledge and observation, to be true.

[Actually, Robert had given Ashley an example of the expert consensus being wrong. He could have picked any number of examples. In the early 1900’s the consensus position of the scientific community was that our galaxy is the only one. Other galaxies were thought to be merely spiral nebulae in our own. By Ashley’s reasoning, we should accept that as true, since it was the scientific consensus of the time.]

The reason I accused Jason of ‘character assassination’ was as much because he chose to post about me ‘behind my back’ as because of what he actually alleged or told his followers to think. As I explained IN DETAIL at the new BCSE thread about you on 19 April [I would include the link again but doing so triggers 'awaiting moderation']

[Actually, a character assassination is an attempt to malign the integrity or an individual, in this case to dissuade people from believing his arguments. Calling a person a liar, or a bigot, etc. would be examples of such. Answering a person’s claims, pointing out fallacious reasoning, and so on is not a character assassination. Again, nothing was done “behind Ashley’s back.” All are posted publically to see on the very website where Ashley made his erroneous claims. Ashley keeps repeating this claim, but it just doesn’t hold water. It’s not like I’ve posted these on some other website.]

“The creationists who have responded to him on this site have been far better-behaved.” The ‘demonising’ comment which you are reacting to referred to YOU. And I DID state that I did not object to the ‘tone’ of other participants (that was before some heated posts with ‘Chris H’ last night).

[Abusive ad hominem fallacy. Actually I think I have been pretty gracious to Ashley, considering he is a guest on my blog. I’ve allowed him to post his opinions, his false allegations (e.g. that creationists are against science, etc.), I’ve allowed him to call me a liar, I’ve tolerated his many abusive ad hominem attacks, I’ve systematically answered his points, and so on. I guess that’s “demonizing” in his view. Some gratitude.]

“Actually, there is abundant evidence that radioactive decay rates can change.” No, there isn’t.

[Wrong. see F. Bosch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5190 (1996) Observation of bound-state beta minus decay of fully ionized 187Re: 187Re–187Os Cosmochronometry
The acceleration of radioactive decay rates is well established in the literature. Again, I really recommend that Ashley pick up a book on science if he is going to discuss this sort of thing. Of course, creationists have researched this topic quite extensively, and have written a great deal on it. That’s one reason why I knew that Ashley was not very well-read on creation.]

I’ve looked into this topic already, posted about it on the BCSE website and touched on it in my detailed review of Sarfati’s book. It’s a YEC ad hoc RESCUE DEVICE ie it has to be the RIGHT ‘change’ not just any ‘change’. That isn’t science it’s make-believe.

[No. It’s a well-established fact. We can accelerate decay of certain isotopes by a factor a billion or more, and there is overwhelming evidence that such has happened in nature, as documented in the RATE books. ]

“Sure they do.” Your evidence that many millions of years is not required, please. If you have it. Preferably evidence peer reviewed by the international scientific community (which includes Christians and theists who are not YECs and who believe naturalism is fine when doing science). After all, you must have a REASON because you say it is wrong to be ‘arbitrary’.

[I already did. The rate at which the helium produced by radioactive decay leaks through rocks has been measured. It is consistent with the rock layers being a few thousand years old, and is wildly inconsistent with billions of years. This was published in the peer-reviewed literature, the RATE books I and II (and the peer-review committee included evolutionists , not that this would be essential to count as peer review.) So really there just isn’t any excuse for Ashley having not read these.]

“anyone trained in logic …”. Trained to be hung up about logic, and to reject anything deemed illogical or arbitrary, regardless of whether it has any scientific merit.

[Logic is the study of the principles of correct reasoning. To be illogical is to reason poorly. We should reject irrational claims. Why does Ashley think otherwise? Rational people have a good reason for their beliefs. They are not arbitrary. Scientific evidence can count as a reason, so long as science itself is rationally justified (which it is in the creation worldview).]

“If only we were all as open-minded as Ashley.” More open-minded than YOU.

[tu quoque fallacy.]

“And none of this was done “behind [Ashley’s] back.” YES IT WAS – as I explained at the BCSE thread.

[For some reason Ashley seems to think that by repeating a refuted claim over and over, it will somehow become “unrefuted.” But it just doesn’t work that way. To do something “behind someone’s back” is a figure of speech meaning to do it secretly such that they don’t know you did it. There is nothing secret about posting on a public blog, the very blog the person wrote on. I suppose one could argue that answering claims from one blog on another blog might be considered “behind the back.” But I haven’t done that.]

[Let’s take a break from Ashley for a little while, shall we? Granted, his arguments have all the logical merit of a 2-year old throwing a temper tantrum. But even that can get irritating after a while.]