As I am no longer able to post a reply to Dr. Jason Lisle on the Mega
Postcast website, I am posting a reply here to his last (17th message)
for general viewing, even if he does not see it. I will probably put
a link on my website at some stage. Note that JL = Jason Lisle,
including earlier text he is quoting from me, and CS = Christopher
Sharp.

Dr. Jason Lisle Says:
July 27th, 2005 at 4:10 pm

JL <<<
I'm glad the presentation has generated some discussion. I wanted
to
respond to a few of the statements on this blog.

Mr. Baty argues: "If God's word (the text) says everything
began over
a period of six days, is interpreted by some to mean it was six 24-
hour days occurring a few thousand years ago, and there is empirical
evidence that things are actually much older than a few thousand
years, then the interpretation of the text by some is wrong."

Hopefully, the fallacy here is pretty clear: This approach is
eisegetical (reading into Scripture based on outside ideas), not
exegetical. To illustrate, imagine that we applied this same
hermeneutic elsewhere: "A common interpretation of the Gospels
teaches that Jesus rose from the dead. Yet, there is empirical
evidence that dead men stay dead, and do not rise. Thus, the
interpretation (that Jesus rose from the dead) must be wrong."
Clearly this would not be a good way to read Scripture. >>>

CS <<<
I am not going to speak for Mr. Baty, but a favorite ploy of the
creationists is to bring up the resurrection. This was a past event
that is accepted (or not) on faith, and the eyewitnesses of the
time. In astronomy every time you use a telescope you are looking
directly into the past, how far back in time you are looking depends
on the distance. The fact that today dead men do not rise today does
not logically preclude that they could not, but in astronomy we can
see the past directly. >>>

JL >>>
Let us have some humility before our Creator and remember that the
Bible is the Word of God. When Scripture clearly teaches something
(be it Christ's resurrection from the dead, or the days of
creation),
let us accept what God has said, and not try to bend the Scriptures
in the direction we wish them to go. Let us not modify the inerrant
Word of God based on our fallible understanding of the limited
evidence we have in the cursed, fallen universe. >>>

CS <<<
This is another game creationists play, i.e. just believe without
thinking, which is by implication a sin. See
http://csharp.com/luther.html . Also the concept of a fallen
universe is not scientific, and we do have a great deal of evidence
of some many gross properties of the universe, even though. >>>
>>>

JL <<<
I'll comment on just a few of Mr. Sharp's statements:

" Likewise if a creationist makes a claim about the age of the
universe, this is science and can be tested by direct
observation…"

Wrong. A claim about age is actually an historical claim; that is,
you are making a claim about when something happened in the past.
This cannot be tested by direct observation; the past is gone.
Remember that age is not a substance that can be measured in the
present by operational science. >>>

CS <<<
WRONG! We can directly see the past, and even for nearby objects for
which the light travel time is very short, we can deduce the past.
White dwarf stars are the remnants of stars similar to the sun that
have burnt all their usable nuclear fuel - they are stellar corpses.
It takes time, millions or even billions of years, for a star to end
up as a white dwarf. If you are claiming that God created 6000 years
ago dead stars with the appearance of age, you are worshipping a god
of deception. >>>

JS <<<
"…i.e. seeing if you can see stars more than 6000 light years
away,
which you can, so that claim is falsified."

Wrong again. A "light year" is not a "year." So, even
though we can
see objects much farther then 6000 light years, it doesn't
necessarily mean that they are over 6000 years old. You could make a
number of assumptions and you might conclude that it has taken a beam
of light x years to travel a distance of x light years. But you would
be wrong. Think about this: Secular astronomers believe that we can
see at least 78 billion light years into the universe
(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html),
yet they believe the universe is "only" 13.7 billion years
old. Thus,
both big bang supporters and creationists agree that light can travel
a distance of x light years (today's distance) in less time than
x
years. People generally don't realize the number of
untested/improvable assumptions that are hidden in standard
cosmology. >>>

CS <<<
A light year is indeed not a year, but the distance light travels in
a year, so it takes x years to travel a distance of x light years by
definition. There is no evidence whatsoever that the speed of light
has changed. I looked at the link, and you are completely wrong, the
deduced size of the universe at present could indeed be 78 billion
light years, but when we look at the most distant objects we see them
as they were located at the time light left them, not now. So when
we talk about a galaxy at say 10 billion light years, that was the
distance it was from our part of the universe (even though the Solar
System did not exist then) 10 billion years ago. The galaxy is no
very much further from us. This is typical obfuscation used by
creationists. >>>

JL <<<
Incidentally, the big bang has a severe light travel-time problem of
its own, which involves the cosmic microwave background. In other
words, the big bang has to get light from point A to point B in far
less time than is possible based on the present understanding of
physics using the standard assumptions. See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp >>>

CS <<<
Inflationary cosmology is a plausable explanation, and in any case
this is only relevant to the first split second after the Big Bang
creation event. The young earth creationist model is far worse, as
all distances beyound about 6000 light years have a light travel
problem. All external galaxies and many objects even in our own
galaxy are beyond the "biblical" 6000 light year limit. Although
nearby galaxies are several million light years away, they are still
so close to us on a cosmological scale, the arguments about the Big
Bang and the expansion of the universe are irrelevant. >>>

JL <<<
"The Big Bang explains very well the abundances of the isotopes
of
the three lightest elements, the microwave background radiation, and
the expansion of the universe."

Actually, the big bang has been retrofitted to "explain"
these. If
any of these things were found to be wrong (suppose a new study found
that Lithium abundance had been overestimated), the big bang would be
quickly adjusted to account for the new values. The only successful
prediction I can think of for the big bang is the cosmic microwave
background; and it didn't even get that right since the CMB is
much,
much smoother than the big bang predicted anyway. >>>

CS <<<
The Big Bang does explain very well, even if models have to be
changed. How does the young earth creation model explain even
qualitatively the isotopic abundances of the three lightest
elements? I have seen no such explanations. >>>

"Yes, there are some scientific problems with the Big Bang…"

The understatement of understatements. J The big bang is a terrible
model. It's not surprising that even many secular astronomers are
abandoning it.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0601skepticism.asp
What will the Christians do who have compromised by incorporating the
big bang into their theology when the big bang is abandoned? >>>


CS <<<
That is the nature of scientific progress, the Big Bang models, and
there are several variations, explain much better the eveidence than
the creationist models. >>>

JL <<<
"I am not desperate, but I am frustrated, but not in the way you
think, but by seeing Christianity being hijacked by creationism, thus
having its influence on matters that are really important, such as
abortion or gay marriage undermined."

If the Bible isn't right about the timescale of creation, how can
we
trust it about the institution of marriage, or the sanctity of life?
Both of these issues are intimately tied to Genesis. Human life is
valuable because God created human beings in His image (Genesis
1:26). The institution of marriage is also found in Genesis chapters
1 and 2. If we reject biblical creation, the moral teachings that
follow from it will also crumble. The spiritual ("heavenly")
teachings of the Bible cannot be separated from the
("earthly")
science/history. Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things,
and
you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly
things?" >>>

CS <<<
This is a typical creationist one-cloth-fits-all argument. The
church, both Protestant and Catholic, used exactly the same arguments
against heliocentricism. Science, such as there is in the Bible, has
nothing to do with its moral teachings. >>>

JL <<<
Gay marriage and abortion are symptoms of an underlying problem –
the
rejection of the authority of God's Word. More and more people
are
rejecting the clear teachings of the Bible in favor of the latest
opinions of the day. This may start with the timescale of creation,
but it won't end there. At Answers in Genesis, we want to
encourage
people to trust in the authority of the Bible which has demonstrated
itself to be correct time and again. Psalm 118:8.

Dr. Jason Lisle >>>

CS <<<
This is again a one-cloth-fits-all argument, what the Bible says
about moral teachings and our relationship with God has nothing to do
with science, such that there, is in the Bible. For me creationists
trying to force fit science education into what the ancient Hebrews
understood, not only undermines science education, but undermines
Christianity by making look it absurd to people with some science
background, then they will reject the moral teachings about abortion
etc. that Christians make.

I checked up Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the LORD than to
put confidence in man". This is a typical quote taken out of
context, implying that Christianity is a religion of ignorance, and
it is sinful to use the brains God gave us, i.e. just be a good
Christian and believe what you are told without question.

Dr. Christopher Sharp
http://csharp.com/creationism.html >>>