The Cognitive Dissonance of Jason Lisle
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Today we are discussing a popular Young Earth Creationist, who also happens to be an Astrophysicist! How and why does someone come to have such an interesting combination of beliefs?
Intro: The Mind Electric by Miracle Musical
www.hawaiiparti...
Outro: Point Pleasant by Brock Berrigan
www.brockberrig...
Socials:
gutsickgibbon@gmail.com
@Gutsick_Gibbon
Support the channel!
/ creator-home
www.redbubble....
I had flashbacks of my deconstruction. Becoming aware of the dissonance was unsufferable. It's so painful... and scary. The fear, of course, was just the indoctrination tho. The pain was more complicated. I'm so relieved of that burden now it's hard to see others struggle with it.
I don't know why people call it "deconstruction". It's not as if the edifice of lies and bullshit had any value as a construction to begin with. To my ear the term grants free underserved value to religion and makes it sound like escaping is bad.
It wouldn't bother me so much if this wasn't a common trick used by cultists to keep people trapped. Making it sound like leaving the cult is undesirable or a negative is just sleazy.
Reminds me of my time in school where the opt-out alternative to religion classes was called "Moral" and always made me think that the kids who went to that special class had something wrong with them where they needed to be taught how to be moral.
@@EdwardHowton i don’t think deconstructing has an inherently negative connotation. In reality it is painful and difficult tho so even tho you come out the other side feeling much better, it’s still not something anybody WANTS to go through. And none of these things mean that it is an inherently bad thing, I of course agree that it is a good thing.
@@EdwardHowton It may derive from Derrida's deconstruction, which is a rejection of Platonism and the notion of "true" forms and essentialism in favor of treating language as having complex and fluid function. In other words language and, more fundamentally, ideas are inherently complex and efforts to simplify or essentialize them are counterproductive.
There's some skepticism about whether the term is actually derived from Derrida, I for one remember when most people called this process deconversion. But deconstruction offers some nice parallels when you consider religious ideation as a form of idealism which must be deconstructed in order to appreciate reality in its complex totality.
I dunno, I still use deconversion personally, as that's the term I'm comfortable with. But in the spirit of Derrida, you can call it Frank and Suzie's Bait Shop if you want. So long as you're conveying some kind of meaning, that's all that really matters.
Hmm. Interesting points both. Doesn't change the fact that to my ear it still sounds like granting too much credit to something inherently awful, but the term makes a bit more sense now, I suppose.
Still gonna be a hard sell for me, considering what I said about my time in grade school and all the free points people are too willing to hand over to religion in general, but I can't help how I feel about it.
Also I'm too old for the new term. Deconversion was always the one people used when I became aware of such things, and it has less of that "religious is a beautiful construction and rejecting it leaves you with a pile of useless debris" vibe, but nowadays I think recovery and rehabilitation are just more appropriate. Religions fuck people up, escaping them is always a positive, even if it's hard.
I guess that's a good way of putting to explain how it sounds to me. I see people talking about religion and all I hear is "We cripple babies by smashing their legs from birth, and then we give them this wonderful crutch called Faith!" and deconstruction makes it seem like fixing people's legs so they no longer need a crutch somehow makes them _less_ than before.
Maybe it's an American thing, I dunno. The heartwarming stories they tell about how people sacrifice dearly to temporarily halt the orphan grinding machine, and I wonder why the damn orphan grinder exists in the first place. Don't deconstruct it, it doesn't deserve the care and attention; just smash the damn thing to pieces and set the pieces on fire.
Erika has grown into a really polished science communicator. Exceptional work. Clever- but not sarcastic. Accurate and thorough- but not over our heads. She’s going to get picked up by Eons before we know it.
Except for the multiple errors and lackluster research.
Bringing red meat to your audience by misrepresentation is not “polished.” It’s quite the opposite.
Errors like what?
@@sicmetal can you please explain a few of the errors when you get a chance? I'm honestly interested. Thanks.
@@travisbicklepopsicle Sure.
Erika incorrectly assumes that Lisle is using arguments like moon recession as an argument against an old Earth. This is incorrect.
Lisle is demonstrating that even evolutionists don’t assume constant rates in the past, less the ages be incorrect.
This is in regards to radiometric dating and the assumption that rates have remained the same throughout time.
Regardless of your viewpoint, it’s disingenuous to misrepresent someone else’s arguments as she did.
@@sicmetal ok, thanks, I'll have to look into that.
“He *is* right, he has to be.” As a former YEC Christian, and someone who interacts with many YECs whenever I go to school, that hits hard. It’s exactly what I see with the people around me. I can’t put into words how personally my younger self would feel attacked at that line. Brilliant work Erika, as always!
So you are YEC or not?
@@thegameranch5935 former. Not anymore. That’s what former means.
@@Limepopsicle07 oh ok, sorry
Yeah, it was a bit depressing tone at the end. Usually, her videos end with a something happier.
@@pavel9652 depressing but it kinda makes a lot of sense to me. The cognitive dissonance that comes with being a scientist and a YEC is depressing.
If one truly believes that the penalty for non-belief is eternal hellfire, the mind will do whatever is necessary to avoid acknowledging ANY evidence that would result in non-belief.
Great analysis, 🧐 totally agree
This was a really good explanation of how some people can be so smart and yet say such stupid things.
Seth Andrews called his book “Christianity Made Me Talk Like an Idiot” for this very reason.
I think of people with advanced degrees like Jordan Peterson, Charles Kos and Robert Sepehr. They do their studies just to bolster their fraud.
They are lying for Jesus.
Intelligent people are better at compartmentalising contradictory positions and ignoring or rationalising the contradictions. Jason Lisle is very intelligent and quite well educated, but he's not intellectually honest.
Why is it stupid? Have you measured the one way speed of light or were you there when God created the cosmos in the supernatural realm where there is no time or refractive index?
As a historian, the idea that we only believe in evolution because we have it as a starting point baffles me. EVERY CULTURE started as some form of creationist-it was the default starting point for most of human history. The only reason evolution won out is that scientists proved it time and time again.
Umm you’re not being honest. There are many secular scientists that admit there isn’t a consensus and it’s still mostly theory. Not much has actually been proven.
@@prissylovejoy702What a stupid comment, you should be ashamed
Ah a classic. Kudos on this proper in-depth debunking outside your specialization!
@AnimatedPlace It’s her channel. She talk about what she wants
@AnimatedPlace the difference between her and creationists is that from what I've seen of her she reaches out to experts in the feild she's discussing
@AnimatedPlace yes but both those clowns have only faith, the excuse used when reasons are not available, to justify belief in deity here in reality. Haven't a leg to stand on, don't cha know...
Yes, this was a slightly risky thing to do but if GG's intention was to inform rather than debate, she did a great job - I learnt a lot.
Professor Dave covers topics outside his expertise as well.
"Geocentric with regard to ONLY light" is a masterpiece of brevity in describing this nonsense
Its a really great point that I never even thought of 😅
cognitive dissonance used to fester within me, and i'm so glad i started accepting that everything i knew was wrong cos i feel like such a more complete person now that i don't have to constantly justify my worldview
Letting myself go with the flow has helped me in other aspects of life, too. I don't have to constantly justify my physical or mental health, my sexuality, my politics, etc
@@phillyphakename1255 you're exactly right! i feel that i don't have to prove myself to anyone anymore, even when they disagree with me, and it's so refreshing to be able to say "you do you, i'ma do me" and, as you say, "go with the flow"
You no longer have to justify your worldview? Why not? Is it because it's the popular consensus? 🤔🙏✝️
@@newcreationinchrist1423 where I live, Christianity IS the popular consensus. Your comment shows a tremendous lack of empathy and lack of active listening to your interlocutors.
If you want to have a genuine conversation about this topic, what we mean by what we said, I'm glad to converse with theists, and I suspect Alys would be too, but that tone isn't the way to do it, with the emojis and whatnot.
Show in your comments that you read more than one word of our comments, and maybe also look into the basic statistics of which belief is the majority. It will allow you to ask better questions, and we will be more likely to engage in a positive and healthy manner.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 because i don't have to prove myself to random people, such as yourself
I really enjoy what GG does, and would give her a standing ovation in person, if I could!
Professor Dave's pithy response to James Tour applies here as well - "You can be a scientist or a preacher; you can't be both."
We actually have measured the one way speed of light coming toward us from distant galaxies. What we found were gravitationally lensed galaxies in which different images had followed different distances as they went around the lens formed by closer galaxy clusters. What happened is that we were able to calculate the differing distance caused by irregularities in the lens. This allowed us to calculate the differences in time taken by the light from the different images of the distant galaxy. We then observed a supernova occur in one of the images and predicted when the supernova would occur in other images and lo and behold, our calculations based on the known speed of light were correct. This is a direct measurement of the velocity of light coming toward us, which directly falsifies Lisle's anisotropic notion.
I also thought of a couple counter-examples. For instance, we see light from the explosion of a supernova smeared out in time depending on its frequency (same reason white light gets separated by a prism into a rainbow). High-frequency gamma rays reach us first, then UV/visible/IR light seconds to minutes later, then radio waves minutes to hours later. We know how dense the interstellar medium is and what it's made of, we know how much time dilation happens depending on frequency and medium density, so we can figure out how long the light has been traveling before it got to us. If light all gets here instantaneously, then why do we see the supernova happen at different times in different frequencies?
Another example: We see neutron stars going nova from accretion inside their blown-off old supernovae remnants, and we can see the light front from that nova hit that (generally spherical) shell of gas and dust lightyears away and start to glow. If c is isotropic, then we would expect that the light would all hit the shell at the same time. However because we're viewing it from one direction, we would see the light hit the front of the spherical shell first, then that spot would expand into a ring as the light from the sides of the shell reached us, and then we would see that ring shrink back to a spot again as the light from the back illumination of the shell finally got here. We would be able to see the anisotropy of c in that pattern, if that was truly how light worked, and of course we don't see anything of the sort.
yeah but even when someine excepts the age of the universe. they can still think the earth is young. altho thats gonna be tough when you understand geology
I remember reading about this supernova. They were able to essentially observe an event on one side of the galaxy before it happened on the other side. That's pretty cool and makes my head hurt just thinking about it!
@@avialexander The difference in time in the case of the lensed supernova images was around twenty years, so it wasn't merely "smeared out in time". Pretty amazing stuff and a complete refutation of Lisle's apologetics.
Wrong! That isn't a direct measurement of the oneway speed, only of relative arrival times. You implicitly assumed a synchronicity convention to conclude speed. You weren't listening to Erika, or Veritasium, or physics. The one-way speed of light CANNOT be measured without assuming a synchronicity convention.
(You aren't smarter than 100 years of physicists. Your headlights-on-a-racecar example doesn't debunk relativity, and you didn't debunk the oneway speed of light. It's ironic that your brainlet name is "Let's try to use real science, okay?")
So in short: Nature and tested science must be considered inconsistent to enable Lisle to make one (of many) deistic tales somewhat consistent.
I nominate this man for the gold medal for mental gymnastics.
Dear god, the ending music with the message was so perfect, I would be absolutely DEVASTATED if I was the subject of a video as well constructed as this one. As always, a wonderful video to listen to as I work!
Wonderful. I think your closing remarks on cognitive dissonance were 👌 spot on. I’d imagine another factor in holding on to his beliefs is the thought that if he’s wrong, he’s one of the very very few professionals who have been hoodwinked by YEC. Probably terrifying to imagine.
If he is ignorant of the evidence demonstrating his views are false (and I'll admit I don't know if he is), it is because he chooses to be. Wilful ignorance is not a defence. In either case, he is intellectually dishonest.
Simply put, he can’t afford to be wrong. I’m sure he feels that if he falls, everything else will fall with him. He’s like the Japanese on Iwo Jima. Fight to the last man and the last bullet.
Being an electrical engineer by training, I believe I have a pretty credible STEM background. I was once a YEC way back when (ca. 1980), but what I remember is the simplicity of the anti-evolution presentations and evidence then. In hindsight, they were coat racks where YECs could hang their cognitive dissonance without really doing any brain straining.
It has to be much harder being a peddler YEC today. So much more is known, and so much more information is available in a form accessible to laypersons. The thing that I find is all the stuff in a large number of fields outside my expertise all make sense to me given my STEM background. They all interweave and create this large and consistent web of interconnected phenomena in different fields that make YEC absolutely impossible when you have a glimpse of the whole picture from the experts in their various fields.
What I find worrisome is that the level of scientific ignorance in the general population (and the unwarranted arrogance that goes with it) makes it unlikely for most people to be able to see that web and why YEC is so woefully inadequate as an explanation for anything. Unfortunately, the YEC advocates today are more sophisticated than their counterparts 40 years ago and excel at making pseudo-science seem sophisticated. The coat racks are much prettier and more credible today, and their YEC consumers are just as gullible. (Thank you, Dunning-Kreuger...) Some of them are intellectually honest enough to try and frantically bail the water out of their boat that comes pouring in from all directions. Others are as ignorant as their audience, and still others are either "lying for Jesus" or are simply exploiting the ignorant faithful to make a buck.
I find it a source of despair when nearly half of the American population think that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools. Perhaps that's just another sign of American being an empire in decline.
They have to target people who have already been indoctrinated into the religious claims from childhood. A child from an irreligious family doesn’t fall for this nonsense.
EE here. I can't understand how a person with engineering background can buy into YEC. But it seems like a lot do.
I had so much science (I have a Physics and Astronomy degree too) that I could never have been taken in by YEC lies.
@@69eddieD I have a degree in computer science but have been interested in astronomy since I was teenager and for good few years in astrobiology, and YEC folk appear to me like they have some sort of mental disorder!
Unfortunately, in creationists minds, if science contradicts scripture, scripture wins.
Scripture always wins because it's true. Science has never contradicted the Bible. Some highly evolved parrots have made that claim but still without effect.
You actually said : "what i see or hear should be valued more trustowrthy than what god says" xDD
@@radekszafran1896 Any evidence god said anything? Or is all you have a book full of errors that clearly was written by ignorant humans and not an omniscient supernatural being that knows everything about the universe?
@@radekszafran1896 He did not write what you claim.
Hang on.... has anyone actually measured the one way speed of light? No. Science is knowledge. No one has this knowledge.
This is what happens when you are taught to believe that your religious faith is literally the most important thing in the universe. You feel to compelled to make excuses for your faith against all counter-evidence as if your life depends on it, because according to your theology... it does.
Jason Lisle visited my family's church once several years ago, I remember his visit taking the place of a regular sermon. It was.....interesting to say the least. He spent most of his time talking about debunking evolution and attempting to prove young earth creationism. At the end of his lecture, I was left with a mix of feelings that could be described as "What even was that? 🤨" and "Oh, brother. 🙄" Everyone else in the church loved it and thought it was brilliant, which is concerning. I've long since deconverted from Christianity and I stopped believing in young earth creationism a while back, it was quite a time period.
Awesome!!! Now imagine you studied the same shit he did and saw him going off on a rant!!! Yikes deluxe 20,000 HD FX!!!! You'd be like: Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude should I call an ambulance or something? (
@@Bob-of-Zoid The congregation would defend him. I have heard stories of congregation defending priests who committed serious crimes against minors. The folks would rather condemn and exile teenage victims from their communities rather than stop covering the predator. Border line insanity.
The congregation almost certainly didn't understand anything he said. All they heard was a well dressed man up the front of the church using big words and reassuring them that their religion is true.
There was a gravitational lensing event where the same galaxy appeared at different times in the night sky as its light took different paths around a star. According to Hugh Ross this proved the one way speed of light is not infinite.
Couldn't you argue that at some points on those paths the light wasn't aimed directly at earth and thus wouldn't have been infinite?
How would this theory account for light travelling between non earth objects? Which could theoretically be 2 space ships or something that we could test?
@@jeffmacdonald9863 _"could theoretically be 2 space ships or something that we could test?"_
We test that millions of times every second with GPS satellites. If the physics of lightspeed wasn't a multi-way constant, GPS wouldn't work at all.
The oneway speed of light can be *nearly* instantaneous. Also, the non-radial path components can account for the relative arrival times. Lisle's YEC claim is ONLY refuted by the older morphologies of distant galaxies: that's it. The unknowability of the oneway speed of light is fundamental, settled science.
@@AlbertaGeek WRONG! You brainlets are disputing settled science. GPS satellites (and everything else) work perfectly fine with anisotropic light. All the equations work. Einstein wrote about it. Why don't you actually STUDY PHYSICS before spreading misinformation?
Lisle's claim is ONLY refuted by the older morphologies of distant galaxies: that's it. The unknowability of the oneway speed of light is settled science.
@@richardhouseplantagenet6004 Not really. The speed of light can be derived from Maxwell's quantum electrodynamics equations. It comes out to just the one value we're all familiar with. If one uses any other value for c and works the derivations backwards, Maxwell's equations become nonsensical. But we know though much experimentation that they're not. So c has to be what it is.
I don't think he suffers from cognitive dissonance, I think he's a frigging disingenuous liar and he knows he's a frigging disingenuous liar.
Yeah, a lot of people use that phrase wrong. (Edit, watched full video. She did not use it wrong.)
I’m all for hating on Jason Lisle but I don’t think it’s a good idea to assume that he’s a liar that easily.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou Back to cognitive dissonance then!?
every creationists is
By the way I know things, by experience. Mmm come on he's bloody lying grifter. That level of education, defending his thesis, can he really be that willfully ignorant? Or is he a desperate grifter, hanging on for fun/prestige and profit?
Back when I was a member of a religious cult I was told to put my doubts on a shelf and ignore them. We were forbidden to talk about our doubts with each other. And this is the origin of the importance of faith - you have to believe not just in the absence of evidence, but in presence of contradictory evidence. Fortunately my cognitive dissonance won the war over my thoughts and I finally allowed myself to weigh the evidence.
It's so crazy to me how grown-up adult scientists have to go through crazy mental gymnastics to explain away an ancient fable describing how they thought the earth was created, instead of accepting that it didn't happen that way.
You're simply underestimating the power of indoctrination. It is difficult and uncomfortable to honestly examine beliefs that you have been taught from childhood by trusted and usually well meaning authority figures, and have consequently woven them into your worldview. Changing you mind about these topics often comes with real world consequences and of course, the threat of eternal torture.
@@1970Phoenix Makes them feel special too. Note that when Lisle visits these churches and does these seminars, he's often the smartest person in the room. It makes him feel good as a power issue to say almost whatever he wants and be adored for it. It's also why you'll never see him make these arguments in front of other smart people.
Thank you so much for this, Erika! This helped me understand a whole lot of things I used to do as a YEC. I’ve been looking back recently, sort of befuddled, at how I managed to believe so fervently in young earth while also trusting science enough to laugh at flat-earthers and antivaxxers for their anti-science positions. Turns out I was doing the same thing as this guy, and yeah, facing and resolving the cognitive dissonance when you’re in that deep is pretty painful stuff.
Keep up the good work! Your videos are some of the most fascinating deep dives on the subjects you tackle! I love your style of long form reaction video mixed with scientific education that doesn’t baby the viewers. I’ve learned a whole lot from your channel since I found it a few months ago 🙂
Prescient analysis. Sadly, one characteristic of defenses is that they’re unconscious, therefore when you’re doing it you consciously know for a fact you aren’t. But the stress doesn’t go away.
That can apply both ways.
This was really well presented.
Excellent scripting and plotting, nice punch at the end.
Excellent work.
Love to see cross-specialization understanding and being able to articulate it in a sufficient manner for ones' purposes. Makes me feel better for not understanding everything you talk about on this channel but being able to grasp a lot of it despite it being outside my wheelhouse of CS and Physics.
Nice to see you've gained some subscribers since the last time I checked, this channel is seriously underappreciated for it's content
I love noting the resulting effects of cognitive dissonance with Christians. Ask them a simple question where they know they want to answer it one way which is rational, reasonable, and intellectually sound, yet know they also need to answer to support their religious beliefs. The result? A failure to answer a simple question, and then a good helping of obfuscation, this is always fun to experience, if a little frustrating on occasion 😂
I just want to tell you how much I appreciate your art in your videos. You do the drawings yourself, meaning you can tailor them to your script/video on the fly, and they're super funny and clever! It's a very unique mode of expression that very few people do, or even _can_ do, and whenever I see yours, it brings a smile to my face.
As a fellow artist and evolutionary biologist with a past career in science communication (and on a smaller scale, as a woman), you are a massive inspiration to me~
P.S. - I did translation work for a Japanese pharmaceutical company, so not only does your shirt says "mutant" at the topーmy guess is the bottom says タートル ("turtle"), too! ...Sorry, just showing off a bit. Lol
Simpler reason for Jason Lisle: You gotta lie to be a Creationist, even to yourself.
In Field Scientists vs Creationism Aron Ra discusses Andrew Snelling a geologist with the same duality, publishing in a peer reviewed article the scientific facts, while denying those facts in an answers in genesis article. It's like there are two separate personalities in one mind.
He’s got HUGE student debt, that’s why he’s a YEC.
When I realized that Gen 1-11 doesn't have to be literal, that my own cultural interpretation could very easily not grasp the overall meaning of the text, that I don't have to lose my faith when I lose my YEC beliefs, I no longer feared the conversation.
I see this shift coming for the church at large. It is obvious that the ancients thought the earth was flat, but when confronted with the reality that it isn't, the church realized that the text of scripture does not require a flat earth even if its authors presupposed one.
When the church realizes that the universe is ancient, that some kind of theory of evolution is necessary to understand history, they will look back at the text of scripture and realize that they do not require a young earth, even if the authors presupposed one.
I appreciate your resolve to refrain from simply bashing his position and instead confronting the evidence and the conversation in a way that promotes conversation and truth seeking.
I spent most of my life in religious cognitive dissonance over evolution and Astronomy specifically but also about geology in general.
I explained the starlight problem to my preachers’ wife, which I figured out independently, when I was in grade school.
In High School I defended evolution from an irreligious skeptic.
I can attest to the painful reinforcement of dogmatic ideas over reasonable thought. It is counterintuitive but I did defend my beliefs which I knew were literally wrong in the literal sense.
It wasn’t until I was told that I did not see a miracle which I thought I did see but rather that my miracle was just a trivial event.
It’s not going after these big ideas that breaks the bonds of faith. It is the realization of the triviality of conviction.
"the realization of the triviality of conviction" is a very interesting phrase. I agree that the "big ideas" like the Kalam argument or the fine tuning principle may not lead anyone away from (or indeed to) faith but I would have thought the emotional consolation given by belief would usually be enough to allow difficult questions to be avoided. Your journey seems to have been quite particular with a long gestation period for your doubts.
@@martifingers I look at it like a bow and arrow. You pull back an arrow a little and it barely moves. The stronger you pull back the bow the further the arrow flies. The string of the bow is held in place by the triviality of conviction. Release that and the arrow will fly away far and fast. The trick is to get the faithful to realize that the tension they create in faith can be released in an instant with that realization of triviality.
@@BenjaminSteber As someone who was actually taught and believed that the earth is flat for about seven years, in large part because “the Bible says so,” I agree. I try to make sure that my motivation for deconstructing is more than the “never again” feeling that comes with that embarrassment.
One thing I immediately remembered when you described the ASC is light echo. Some stars or supernovae are surrounded by reflection nebulae, often light-years wide, which will receive the light of an event a while later, and we can see the propagation of these light waves in real time (for one variable star, RS Puppis, we even have an animation of the light from the stars pulsation creating waves in the nebula itself!) And I mean, sure Lisle could say that since the reflection of this reflection doesn't TECHNICALLY count as a one way beam of light or whatever. But we really have measured light waves, very far from local space, going in different directions than right at us, and it always still comes out to c.
"Pointing the telescope towards the center of the universe" - There is no center. Or, if you prefer, everywhere is the center. What matters here is just distance. If you have a telescope capable of seeing galaxies at, say, z=16, then no matter which direction you point the telescope in you will see those galaxies, provided nothing is in the way, and the light you see from those galaxies left them just 250 Million Years after the big bang.
But you are correct to point out this issue. I'm sure Lisle would say that we have not seen enough galaxies at high redshifts to definitively answer the question. But it's an exciting time for those of us fascinated by the early universe. The latest data from JWST is confirming our predictions that early galaxies where small and metal poor ("metal" in astronomy means "any element heavier than helium").
We are still waiting for data from the earliest galaxies at the dawn of the stellar universe. The age of "Cosmic Reionisation". It is possible that JWST may not be big enough to see it because one of the things we are learning is that galaxies formed earlier than we thought they did in the 1990s when JWST was conceived. But we should get enough data to show that galaxies at z>14 are typically small and metal poor compared to galaxies at z
Well said!
People ("non-believers") have challenged Lisle about speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on his audience. Lisle simply says "I tell them (non-believing scientists) what I know, NOT what I believe.".
Love seeing Marty timer 81 getting a mention. I just love the SN 1987 argument, used it myself with YEC's . Maybe a little because I remember my dad pointing it out on the sky when it was happening.
For those uninitiated: there's a ring of materials around the star that lit up 6 months after the SN and by measuring the optical angle of the ring we can calculate the distance to the supernova assuming the light traveled isomorphic with C.
It sems to me that the YEC epistemology is basically ‘Someone who sounds really smart can believe this, so that means I’m justified in believing it too’.
My family thinks Lisle is smarter than fricking Einstein. . I just threw up in my mouth.
Nice video. Appreciate that you were willing to step a little outside your comfort zone for this one. Lisle's anisotropic approach to the speed of light is a good example of "Ontological Complexity," which is a term I recently learned from David John Wellman's channel (so I hope I'm using it correctly). I think it's where you add extra assertions about the nature of things (such as how light works) without sufficient evidence. The more ontologically complex your beliefs are, the less reasonable it becomes to hold those beliefs. Ad hoc justifications add complexity since there is an extra layer to your beliefs that should then require further justification.
Yeah, I think it’s a bit ironic that Lisle’s rebuttal of the Oort Cloud is that there isn’t evidence for it. Couldn’t the same be said about anisotropic light?
@@averagejoe2232 True, but they aren't intellectually honest. There is a hefty list of near-parabolic comets with semi-major axis bigger than 2000 AU suggesting they might belong to the Oort cloud. I would call it a decent evidence.
It's simple: Experience reality, then deny reality with "We don't know for sure", then come up with fairy tale of choice.
Science (or “science” in this case) is much easier when you work backwards from the conclusion you want.
The best part of the moon argument isn't that the recession isn't constant, its that their math is off by billions of years. I forget the exact number, but I did the math as they present it, and at the current recession rate the moon would have been about half the distance from the earth that it is now.. 4 billion years ago. Not touching the earth 1-2 billion years ago, half the distance from earth 4 billion years ago.
There math is even further off when they talk about the mass that the sun has lost.
Their argument completely ignores Newton's work on Gravity and Orbital Mechanics. You halve the distance of the Earth Moon and you quadruple the force of gravity and the potential energy that must be overcome to move the mass of the moot to a higher orbit. Any increase in Earth tidal forces also results in higher tidal heating of the Earth-Moon pair. That energy has to be accounted for also as the rotation of the Earth-Moon pair is also slowed down.
I came back for another dose of reality from the Gutsy Gibbon. Thanks for your comprehensive work. I cured my digestive disease.
Look, he's just really certain he's right, ok?
📝
I'm certain that he's a disingenuous liar 🤥
Just saw you had a new video and thought "huh? She uploaded 4 days ago? How did I miss that?"
Before remembering I had a c-section 5 days ago.
I'm usually watching these when they're only hours old
As a non-scientist can anybody explain how the "instantaneous light" hypothesis explains the "red shift" or Doppler Effect. If light is reaching us instantaneously from a distant object, regardless of it's position and speed. Umm?
Good point.
Maybe it's even further away than our models suggest?
That's just a wild ass guess, though.
Very simple. It does not. Infinite speed of light means that, with respect to the speed of light, all of the celestial objects move at the same speed. With respect to light moving at infinite speed, every object is stationary. Now God does not have to create the light already in transit, but he has to shift it into the lower frequencies by hand, individually for every star, in just the correct amount to fake the universe that we see.
And not only that, but God has to continuously fake the changing redshift of every star that has a planet, or at least he has to do so for every star that we have detected that has a planet. Being God must be very boring.
Mmm as the light travels back, after it's instant trip, it's traveling away and thus the redshift. Crap here comes Andromeda!
Easy answer, it can't, Doppler effects can only be observed due to limited motion of the information while the observer and observed objects hold different velocities, infinite velocity of light would mean that the light would be everywhere throughout the entire universe at any one given time at the same frequency, so we should observe O type stars in the UV end of the electromagnetic spectrum, something that tends not to happen due to the distances, sorry now I'm going on a tangent 😂😭
Regarding Lisle's Hovindian class stuff, to be fair to Hovind, old Kent never originated any of those arguments. It's fairer to say Hovind got them from the classic 1970s YEC Hovind's brain was marinated in, and Lisle has also fallen back on these cherished tropes, part of his YEC comfort blanket.
This was a very well done video. Your facts and attitude towards this man were very balanced. Thank you Gutsick for all you do!
Regarding observational evidence for the Oort cloud, check "the list of near-parabolic comets" on Wikipedia. There are about 500 such objects, 160 of which have a semi-major axis over 2000 AU, which indicates they might have belong to Oort cloud. Handful of these objects have insane semi-major axis over 100,000 AU!
Well done, and thank you again for being logical. That’s really all it takes. Thanks again.
I remember that exact feeling. I also remember loosing it. It honestly felt like loosing a friend. Since my Dad, 2 Aunts and my youngest daughter died inside of 5 years I’ve missed the idea again. Powerful vid yo.
Adding a preemptive like 🙋🏼♀️👍🏻
Thanks for the shout out, friend!
I feel like there should be a more specific term for this type of cognitive dissonance. There is the holding of two incompatible ideas as true simultaneously, and then there is the uncomfortable feeling arising from holding two incompatible ideas as true simultaneously. I feel like the first case should be something like cognitive disassociative compartmentalization. Yes, I'm a bit pedantic but I've also suffered from CD second definition for years before my deconstruction. Perhaps the feeling should have its own term, like cognitive dissonance dysphoria.
George Orwell called it “doublethink”
@Milo Hilltop - I really like your re-name! It's much more descriptive of what might be going on in someone's brain.
And the idea of giving a different name for the uncomfortable feeling, or dysphoria, experienced by being (at least subconsciously) aware of it also seems important -
If only to separate it from the euphoria experienced by being in a transcendental state of Nirvana - a state where 2 opposing ideas live harmoniously.
The mind is neither full nor empty.
The truth is both real and not real.
Or maybe this also describes the fundamental truth of quantum reality:
Light is both and neither a wave and a particle.
A single quantum particle (i.e. electron) in a box is both there and not there - like Schroedinger's cat being neither alive nor dead.
Though thinking about the quantum world may give some people that uncomfortable dysphoric feeling, it is also true and real - so it doesn't quite fit into that dissociative compartmental state.
4 new words, then?
I'm sorry I think I'm compelled to say the same thing every time I see that intro: it's probably the best one I've ever seen on RUclips. I watch it in a loop sometimes, for a duration I shall not disclose 😂. I can't explain it, I'm crazy about it.
I imagine that Lisle became religious before entering university and subsequently pursued astronomy and physics in order to use science to validate his religious beliefs. He undoubtedly has both a strong personal and financial motivation for maintaining his beliefs in spite of their weak scientific foundations. Christians love to cherry pick the Bible so why not cherry pick science as well?
This is the story of a guy who staked his career on saying “I found a solution in special relativity that makes me smarter than Einstein and I found it in the Bible!”
It’s funny because the distant starlight problem was one of the first problems I came up with, my dad being a southern Baptist pastor just says “God made the universe with the light already in motion.” As in it was already on the way here when the universe was born (my dad being a YEC). Next problem though is what about us seeing light from stars that have already disappeared but we’re still seeing their light that’s travelled millions of years. Those stars would have to have never existed at all but instead would have been created…already destroyed. My dad just told me to stop asking questions LMAO.
when they ask you to stop asking questions. you know they do not have good reasons to believe what they believe
I had fun with Lisle's arguments when he showed up on one YT video talking about Craters. Minute by minute, the guy just outright lies about all sorts of things, and you can even see in some moments where his own (creationist) interviewer knows more than Lisle thinks he would, so Lisle backtracks and gives another explanation.
Referring to Jason Lisle and others like him as "scientists" (as AIG, ICR et al. do) is inaccurate. A scientist is one who does work that results in new knowledge about nature. These people do not do that.
Wow! Thoroughly examining the evidence, citing reputable sources, and refraining from tedious pseudo academic goofy-speak…I stumbled across a RUclips gem in a sea of disinformation. Was not expecting this when I hesitantly clicked to watch. Really nice. Keep up the great work.
Veritasium's video is wrong. They presume that all measurements of lightspeed are performed by measuring the time for a light pulse to travel.
There are means of measuring light speed that do not measure a light packet, and as such are not subject to the limitations of measuring a pulse.
To wit: Romer's measurement and aberration of starlight both look at periodic 'errors' in our prediction of certain astronomical measurements. Those periods are both synchronized to the phase of Earth's orbit and are 100% explained by the speed of light and the change in position of Earth with respect to the astronomical objects as it orbits. We get from the time offsets from ignoring the Earth's orbit and the size of the Earth's orbit a speed of light. And that speed is only in the "towards Earth" direction in all cases. That is a one way measurement of the speed of light. It is the same for all phases of the Earth's orbit.
--
And then there is the fact that Maxwell's equations don't work if light has a direction sensitivity to its propagation.
Love the video, as always good information. I just wanted to point out that I heard the Minecraft music in the background and I thoroughly appreciate it
As Aron Ra says, This stuff [in the Bible] was never meant to be taken literally.
dude that minecraft music HIT at the end hahah. Loved the video!!
Thank you for bringing up Lisle, he disturbs me. You did a good job with the physics.
14:10
Georgia Purdem also hasn't responded to my criticism of her answer to the genetics taught to her...
When she was a genetic student. Was it textbook genetics or creation science "genetics" that was taught?
Thanks Erika.
Your eclectic presentations of science are so good that I'm having to make time to work through them all.
I ain't afraid of no physics! Show me all the physics you've got, Gibbon! ;) I was going to recommend the video from Veritasium, but I see there is already a reference in your video. Both are great learning pieces, thanks!
The _Minecraft_ music near the end there really threw me for a loop. I was playing _Minecraft_ at the time, but I always have the music turned off! 😆
I've had to deal with Idiots of this sort for DECADES!
There is no cure for stupid. The best defense is Ridicule. Never let him forget that we all know he's crazy and needs a caretaker to help him through this scary thing called Reality.
Special pleading at the speed of light.
Everytime I watch the opening animation, I crave Oreos, because of that one specimen. (Oreopithecus, 9 MYA)
If the Universe is only 6K years old, how did we get so much genetic diversity in Homo sapiens in under 6K years. That must have been some mutation rate.
I wasn't sure where that Minecraft music was coming from for a second 😂
Thank you. We love your work.
This was a brilliant video, and a timely reminder that most of these people aren't actually stupid. Their religious programming runs too deeply for them to shake off, like you said it's half of their identity. They're right because they CANNOT be wrong. They can't deal with it. It's truly a pity how much hurt hides inside their hollowed halls.
Can’t I calculate the speed of light once I know the permittivity and permeability of free space?
Lisle would need to re-write maxwell’s equations to depend on the direction of EM radiation and I’m not sure how that would be done.
His solution would all just be a rather bizarre example of special pleading anyway.
Ms. Gibbon, Thank You for snagging this guy. He's been on my "laugh out loud" list for way too long and has been a Pinocchio all this time-- and actually knows real science-- such a shame!!🥺🙄
The problem with the moon recession thing is also, just that it is false. The Moon is 384 400 km away, while the current recession in 4.5 billion years would result in the moon being 114 300 km closer, only slightly less than 1/3 of the distance to the Earth is lost.
Your research is wonderfully in-depth as usual! incredible work!
I always think of the Chinese Problem: If the Bible is true and the Flood actually happened, why didn't the Chinese people perish, or even know about it?
I love the animated introduction.
The old intro ❤
Ok but where do i find the original version of the business monkey in this video?!?!?! Those clips are gold
Not only does supercontinents appear to slow down the Moon's recession, during "snowball Earth" conditions where the oceans were frozen, the Moon may not have receded at all.
Great presentation. I have run into various videos by this guy, but the comments are always turned off...wonder why? Fingers in the ears is not a good look for scientists.
C is shorthand for the speed of light. However, C is more appropriate as the speed of causality. Gravity also works at the speed of light. So if photons travel instantaneously in one direction, then gravity does too and we'd collapse into a black hole centered on Earth.
It must be so. I need it to be so! It can't be any other way! Mmm please daddy make it so! This reminds me of the 1st time I couldn't fix my son's broken toy, and his reaction that there were some things daddy couldn't fix or do. Poor lad...
My favorite topic. Thanks for this one Gutsick.
I think controllers at JPL would be pretty surprised if they sent a command to a deep space probe and got an instant reply after the signal reached the spacecraft.
Jason Lisle saying what he thinks the answer is reminds me of many creationists' hypocrisy.
A claim they don't agree with can be dismissed if every alternative explanation isn't eliminated (which is impossible, because how do you know you've got every alternative?)
A claim they agree with cannot be dismissed until it is *fully* disproven (to their satisfaction, which is often also impossible).
When I started hearing Minecraft soundtrack, I thought I am finally going insane. But no, the only one who is insane in this video is Jason.
You did great with the physics!
Jason goes: ”Ah, here is our common pool of knowledge. What a lovely sight! Now, let me just take a piss in it.”
All I have to say about the comets argument Lisle made is... "Humans can't live longer than ~120 years. There are humans alive today. So is the earth
The music for the concluding remarks sounds like Minecraft. Which makes me feel wistful, but also glad that I’m no longer living in the childish fantasy world that evokes.