Jason Lisle's YouTube Videos
Since this guy really is (or was) a true astrophysicist, his YouTube videos are quite good. He scares me much more than Andy Dandy does because he can actual talk the science lingo. Of course, he proceeds from false assumptions with no evidence, such as "Creation was Supernatural", (one of his slides) and then goes on from there. Jimaginator (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 Placing bets
I doubt c-decay is what he's going to publish. Based on his hints that it involves, rather than violates, relativity, I think he might try it on with gravitational lensing. Trying to shoehorn scripture into general relativity isn't totally unknown, either. Such a thing isn't an unheard of scientific hypothesis either; there is a very slight chance that the universe is actually incredibly small and that because so much mass is twisted into a small space, lensing would wrap the light around and give it the illusion of being much bigger - there's an analogy about shining a light into a small box but I have totally forgotten where I read it. This would solve the starlight problem without c-decay by making the universe physically smaller, although like most creationist special pleading, the magnitude to get the age of the universe down to 6000 years is still way off. This hypotheis as science, however, can be tested using the most recent instruments for detecting the CMB and I think it's now mostly discounted. bomination 11:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever it is will have much more value as an insight into one person's internal personal problems than into even creationism, let alone science - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Come on Lisle, what's the hold up? I'm dying here! bomination 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 ARJ and Jasons Blog
Jason wrote an item about how well his article on Anisotropic Synchrony Convention HERE had been received and grumbling that his paper had been mocked by evolutionists and that the proper way to rebut was in the ARJ.
"So far, no rebuttals have been submitted for publication in the ARJ, which would be the scholarly way to point out problems with a published model."
I wrote to the site about their stated publishing guidelines and got this reply.
"Excerpted text from the ARJ “Instructions to Authors Manual”.VIII. Paper Review Process 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?" They reply also stated they hoped the reply was helpful. Actually not so much AIG , it seems to support the view that any "secular" science based reply isnt acceptable because its not YEC. That makes Dr Lisles statement on proper rebuttal a bit dishonest or perhaps hypocritical. I could be wrong though Hamster (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 Missing source
"Until recently, creationists denied that extra-solar planets even existed."
I think that statement needs to be sourced.
 New stats and question
Jason has left AiG according to Ham's Facebook page....
And can anyone confirm if this is Jason? http://www.jailbase.com/en/arrested/nc-mcso/2012-01-10/jason-lisle-anderson-1521379-332528 Could be be using his middle name as his last? It sure looks a lot like him!
 Not Jason Lisle
To clear up the earlier post:
"And can anyone confirm if this is Jason? http://www.jailbase.com/en/arrested/nc-mcso/2012-01-10/jason-lisle-anderson-1521379-332528 Could be be using his middle name as his last? It sure looks a lot like him!"
No, this isn't a picture of Jason Lisle. And, no, it actually doesn't look a lot like him.
BTW, ad hominem attacks don't add to RationalWiki's credibility, so for the rest of us, perhaps you best watch your posts going forward.
- If I was to wear my tin-foil hat for a moment I'd say this isn't RW making ad hom attacks but someone posting the same link, twice, under different usernames just to make it look like RW is making such a stupid accusation and undermine the credibility. I don't see anyone else other than two users with 2 contributions only to this page discussing it. postate 09:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 Tone trolling
I'm pretty uniformly troubled by articles about prominent creationists/apologists/theologians/fairly mainstream creationist outfits that rely on ad hominems and pointless snark as an excuse for poor scholarship, or to just make irrelevant insults. This article has a whole section going through irrelevant nonsense about Lisle not having a diploma mill PhD. So, he's a credentialed PhD. That's great. That means he's an appropriate person to engage on the merits more rigorously than we would a poorly educated creationist relying more close on goddidit reasoning. Or is there some subtextual point the author was trying to make more obliquely than I can detect? I've been reverted for "tone trolling" so I'm going to leave this one alone for awhile, but I just don't see how coming off as petulant assholes in articles that come up fairly high on google does anything for our credibility. A lot of our material, sadly out of many of our bailywick's now that this community has become a chat site for nerds talking about tea in LQT and block messages (IM and Facebook work great, guys (fuck off in advance if you've got a strident response, pussy)) is so out of date that it's greatly surpassed in quantity and depth of faulty analysis by super busy fundies that we don't need a single distraction in pages people are coming to directly from google searches. the QE! material comes to mind in particular. CMI has been very busy "refuting" responses with more of Sarfati and Don Batten's lies. Our articles on them are filled with shit "snark" too. I don't have the background to do anything but "tone troll" - we need qualified editors to get farther into the science. 16:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)</rant>
- Revise: The Sarfati article is actually mostly alright. Don Batten redirects to 100 Evidences, which does suck ass in places for the reason I stated. 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where your problem is with this one, the section details what his PhD work was actually in and is merely making the point that some creationists don't, in fact, have sham qualifications. Lisle should the sort of person worth engaging with because of that, and that's what I read from the article. Then he goes as spoils it by saying stupid things like what is quoted at the top. Is there a way you'd re-write it? sshole 21:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)