If the anisotropic synchrony convention were true, then the one-way speed of light would have to be centered towards Earth within a YEC model as it is rotating on its axis and revolving around the Sun as the Sun moves around the galaxy, which itself is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy. That sounds awfully reminiscent to the absurdity of Geocentricism. If I would take a stab at the one-way speed of light test, then I wouldn't even bother using clocks, but would attempt to use interferometry. If light waves are to act as water waves, then have a laser run parallel to double-slits to see how the waves interfere with each other, and then rotate the apparatus to observe any changes in the fringes.
Thanks for uploading. I had the opportunity to see a rocket launch in 2018. Memorable experience. I posted a pretty cool montage of the journey to my channel.
@@constructivecritique5191 That´s wrong. The red shift is a continuous prozess and is still happening. You shouldn´t comment about things you do not understand.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 you shouldn't be concluding things based on incomplete understandings! Unless you're a know it all arrogant atheist trying to steal reality!
@@constructivecritique5191 And you shouldn´t regurgigate creationists lies by morons like Lisle whose mind is deranged by Bible reading. Have you studied physics? Have you the competence to weight the arguments? Are you in any way able to understand what constitutes rational reasoning? Probably not. No, certainly not. And this is not arrogance. Lisle´s argumentation simply holds not even a drop of water.
Yes that is a misunderstanding If you would read Genesis real quick you would see that the firmament is not a solid object as the bible describes birds flying through it.
As far as earth's magnetic field decaying, from some simple google searches, it seems that earth's magnetic field decays and grows. I'm not certain myself due to my lack of knowledge of the science, but I think it's worth looking into. Edit: I think palaeomagnetism is an interesting field to look into.
This is called magnetic reversals and we YEC actually predicted that and when it happened. It doesn't just flip on its own when it gets low, it takes a mechanism. Baumgardner predicted it rapidly flipped fast during the flood, not slowly over time. His prediction was confirmed in lava flows years later
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I've heard different answers from creationists about this flipping of the magnetic field during the flood. I've heard it flipped many times, and I heard that it just got weaker at points due to the catastrophe happening. I dont know which it is, but one thing I do know, because it seems like you could be heading in this direction (correct me if I'm wrong about that) I do know that the theory of a dynamo creating magnetic fields doesnt work. If it did, venus would have a magnetic field, and by secular standards, mercury wouldnt.
@@robertramsey653 Robert, in January or February I watched a live video clip from the "Haus der Astronomie" about our solar system and I explicitly ask in the Q&A - section about Mercury´s magnet field. It seems only creationists tell the story that the magnetic properties of Mercury and Venus are a problem for a MHD - explanation. Regarding the earth magnetic field: As there was no flood the question about the flipping rate during the flood is obsolete.
Though plenty of politicians are still behind on the 1.4 < 4.5. And differential rotation helps prove the existence of non radiative, non reflective, non absorptive, and therefore undetectable, Dark Matter. Is this remark implicit of Dark Matter scepticism?
Dr Lisle, isn't your buddy the key? Why do we have to reflect the same lite back to us ? If a different lite is sent back at the instant of contact? Isn't the time devided equal to two ,one way trips? I know I'm wrong! Please tell me why? Ty.
Nope, you are not wrong. If Lisle would be right, a measurement between A and B must show a different result than one between B and A. That´s not the case. YEC is nonsense.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 no young earth creation is NOT nonsense. By what you say, you are calling Einstein nonsense. Is that what you are saying? You are smarter than frickin Einstein? All I've seen from you on here is ridicule, instead of actually trying to talk to people and give your point of view. Seems to me you have arrogance with a side of chip on your shoulder. You catch a lit more bees with honey than you do with sour grapes.
@@robertramsey653 "Norbert Jendruschj no young earth creation is NOT nonsense. By what you say, you are calling Einstein nonsense. Is that what you are saying? You are smarter than frickin Einstein? All I've seen from you on here is ridicule, instead of actually trying to talk to people and give your point of view. Seems to me you have arrogance with a side of chip on your shoulder. You catch a lit more bees with honey than you do with sour grapes." Okay, first explain me, why I call Einstein nonsense. I would say you don´t understand SRT. Besides, intellectual superiority watched from deep down below, sometimes is perceived as arrogance. Sorry for this, it´s sometimes unavoidable.
I still think the physics itself is off. For instance, one can't directly observe spacetime curvature, but can only attribute lensing to the source of gravity, and then assume that correlation means causation. The same goes for the superluminal growth of spacetime between galaxies that is also not verifiable by experimentation. That conclusion is reached by assuming Relativity is true, and it cannot be verified independently of that assumption. If one were to approach the heavens with a biblical mindset, then it is written that what God made was good. However, the jets proceeding from the cores of galaxies is evidence of God destroying billions of solar systems. The only reason God would destroy creation by fire in such a manner would be in response to sin. Otherwise, God created what He deemed good, and then destroyed what was good. That's like God setting half of the Garden of Eden on fire after He made it. If curious, then Bing image search "Bode's Galaxy Poster" and "Giant Biggest Whirlpool" by whirlpoolhitman.
You think.....that the catholic church.....the same one that burned bibles, persecuted Christians who tried to print and share it, killed Christians who owned and read it.....BROUGHT us the Bible? You have the audacity to suggest that without the catholic church GOD would be incapable of keeping his word whole and unchanged?
Wow, looks like someone is egregiously ignorant of the history if Western religion. just wow.... yeah, thank a bunch of greedy murders and tyrants. BRAVO
Science. Coming to a conclusion no matter where the evidence leads. Creationism. This is the conclusion I want. How can I make the facts fit? Utter rubbish.
No we start with the understanding that the Bible is true, make predictions based on that, and then test to see if our predictions are correct. It's called the scientific method
@@jubileeYAVEL... you couldn't be any less accurate. You obviously don't understand the differences between apologetics and Science. Science never starts with a presupposition, but apologetics always do. You are doing just that. starting with a presupposition and only looking for information to support it, all the while ignoring the information that doesn't. You literally admitted, in your own explanation, of doing what you claimed you don't do. That's priceless.
@sinjinbritt3371 ok how do you make predictions? You have to start with a hypothesis. Call it a hypothesis or presupposition The important thing is to test it and examine the evidence. That is science
The hypocrisy, irony and charlatanry exhibited in this video is astonishing, and the incredulity and intellectual laziness of those who fail to recognize it is just plain sad.
The earth is not flat and there is no invisible dome preventing things from passing through it. A globe earth fits the facts where a flat earth has so many problems its not funny
Please tell me you don’t honestly believe that god created all this, most of it outside of our ability to see it until the last 20 years, just for us puny ape descendants on this little insignificant rock? Billions of stars in billions of galaxies, just for us?
Insignificant.....hmmmm. That can sustain all sorts of life forms.....insignificant? That carries billions of conscious worlds, each unique in its own lifetime? Are you sure you want to insist on the word "insignificant rock"??
Does the Word of God say He did it just for us? Or was it primarily for His own glory and which we get to benefit from as His only creations made in His image?
@@professorneturman2249 Could you please re-phrase your apparently fallacious complex question for clarity? I think there may be a good question hidden in there :-).
Better question is, assuming 14+ billions of years of existence, outside the statistically insignificant time we've been measuring and contemplating these things, are there recorded measurements of energy in situ over the life of the universe that were left for us so we can conclude that the measurements have been constant? If you want to be the skeptic, that's good. Be skeptical of it all. Assuming constants without statistically historic evidence is not just absurd, it's reckless.
@@constructivecritique5191 Feel free to quote where I said that. Oh, I didn't? You're either lack basic reading comprehension are purposely misrepresenting my views? Got it. Come back to me when you can be serious instead of stupid.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.6 (1/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m05kZ2GDKXg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D3 | Fall | รู้ผลทีมแชมป์ พร้อมตั๋วสู่ PMGC](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7NxsN0Ch6vk/mqdefault.jpg)
I really appreciate Dr. Lisle's work. Praise the LORD!
Thank you Dr. Lisle - may God continue to bless you
Parfaite corrélation entre les sainte écriture et la science 🔥💗🔥
Thanks.. Light just is.. Because God said..
Alléluia 🔥💗🔥
💦⚡🔮⚡💦 Firmament of Gods handiwork & power. Psalm 19 & 150
If the anisotropic synchrony convention were true, then the one-way speed of light would have to be centered towards Earth within a YEC model as it is rotating on its axis and revolving around the Sun as the Sun moves around the galaxy, which itself is moving towards the Andromeda galaxy. That sounds awfully reminiscent to the absurdity of Geocentricism.
If I would take a stab at the one-way speed of light test, then I wouldn't even bother using clocks, but would attempt to use interferometry. If light waves are to act as water waves, then have a laser run parallel to double-slits to see how the waves interfere with each other, and then rotate the apparatus to observe any changes in the fringes.
Thanks for uploading. I had the opportunity to see a rocket launch in 2018. Memorable experience. I posted a pretty cool montage of the journey to my channel.
God stretched out the heavens! The universe is still expanding.
God stretched out, not God is still strechting out. The Bible is literally wrong in this point.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 wrong, the red shif being seen now happened thousands of years ago.
@@constructivecritique5191 That´s wrong. The red shift is a continuous prozess and is still happening. You shouldn´t comment about things you do not understand.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 you shouldn't be concluding things based on incomplete understandings! Unless you're a know it all arrogant atheist trying to steal reality!
@@constructivecritique5191 And you shouldn´t regurgigate creationists lies by morons like Lisle whose mind is deranged by Bible reading. Have you studied physics? Have you the competence to weight the arguments? Are you in any way able to understand what constitutes rational reasoning?
Probably not. No, certainly not.
And this is not arrogance. Lisle´s argumentation simply holds not even a drop of water.
kinda like seeing with our eyes its so fast we don't pay it no mind and the same with light it to is so fast we don't think any different about it
How about setting 2 clocks and then separating move both to a set distance. Move both the same speed. Why did you move one clock?
Are there any other examples of energy changing speed because of direction?
Creation Reveals Astrology: How the Secrets of the Numinous Confirms Nothing.
💖🙏💖🙏💖
I'm probably wrong about The Earth being the Flat Stationary Firmament Covered creation.
Yes that is a misunderstanding
If you would read Genesis real quick you would see that the firmament is not a solid object as the bible describes birds flying through it.
As far as earth's magnetic field decaying, from some simple google searches, it seems that earth's magnetic field decays and grows. I'm not certain myself due to my lack of knowledge of the science, but I think it's worth looking into.
Edit: I think palaeomagnetism is an interesting field to look into.
This is called magnetic reversals and we YEC actually predicted that and when it happened. It doesn't just flip on its own when it gets low, it takes a mechanism. Baumgardner predicted it rapidly flipped fast during the flood, not slowly over time. His prediction was confirmed in lava flows years later
@@YoungEarthCreation Why are you lying so shamelessly? This question comes from one who has studied geophysics, so don´t dare to lie to me too.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 I've heard different answers from creationists about this flipping of the magnetic field during the flood. I've heard it flipped many times, and I heard that it just got weaker at points due to the catastrophe happening. I dont know which it is, but one thing I do know, because it seems like you could be heading in this direction (correct me if I'm wrong about that) I do know that the theory of a dynamo creating magnetic fields doesnt work. If it did, venus would have a magnetic field, and by secular standards, mercury wouldnt.
@@robertramsey653 Robert, in January or February I watched a live video clip from the "Haus der Astronomie" about our solar system and I explicitly ask in the Q&A - section about Mercury´s magnet field. It seems only creationists tell the story that the magnetic properties of Mercury and Venus are a problem for a MHD - explanation.
Regarding the earth magnetic field: As there was no flood the question about the flipping rate during the flood is obsolete.
Though plenty of politicians are still behind on the 1.4 < 4.5.
And differential rotation helps prove the existence of non radiative, non reflective, non absorptive, and therefore undetectable, Dark Matter. Is this remark implicit of Dark Matter scepticism?
Dr Lisle, isn't your buddy the key? Why do we have to reflect the same lite back to us ? If a different lite is sent back at the instant of contact? Isn't the time devided equal to two ,one way trips? I know I'm wrong! Please tell me why? Ty.
Nope, you are not wrong. If Lisle would be right, a measurement between A and B must show a different result than one between B and A. That´s not the case. YEC is nonsense.
Actually that's a pretty good idea, but I have heard him (dr Lisle) say that if you can think of it, it's already been tried.
@@norbertjendruschj9121 no young earth creation is NOT nonsense. By what you say, you are calling Einstein nonsense. Is that what you are saying? You are smarter than frickin Einstein? All I've seen from you on here is ridicule, instead of actually trying to talk to people and give your point of view. Seems to me you have arrogance with a side of chip on your shoulder. You catch a lit more bees with honey than you do with sour grapes.
@@robertramsey653
"Norbert Jendruschj no young earth creation is NOT nonsense. By what you say, you are calling Einstein nonsense. Is that what you are saying? You are smarter than frickin Einstein? All I've seen from you on here is ridicule, instead of actually trying to talk to people and give your point of view. Seems to me you have arrogance with a side of chip on your shoulder. You catch a lit more bees with honey than you do with sour grapes."
Okay, first explain me, why I call Einstein nonsense. I would say you don´t understand SRT.
Besides, intellectual superiority watched from deep down below, sometimes is perceived as arrogance. Sorry for this, it´s sometimes unavoidable.
I still think the physics itself is off. For instance, one can't directly observe spacetime curvature, but can only attribute lensing to the source of gravity, and then assume that correlation means causation. The same goes for the superluminal growth of spacetime between galaxies that is also not verifiable by experimentation. That conclusion is reached by assuming Relativity is true, and it cannot be verified independently of that assumption.
If one were to approach the heavens with a biblical mindset, then it is written that what God made was good. However, the jets proceeding from the cores of galaxies is evidence of God destroying billions of solar systems. The only reason God would destroy creation by fire in such a manner would be in response to sin. Otherwise, God created what He deemed good, and then destroyed what was good. That's like God setting half of the Garden of Eden on fire after He made it.
If curious, then Bing image search "Bode's Galaxy Poster" and "Giant Biggest Whirlpool" by whirlpoolhitman.
Thank God the Catholic church had the wherewithal to bring us the Bible... we sure owe them a debt of gratitude...❤
You think.....that the catholic church.....the same one that burned bibles, persecuted Christians who tried to print and share it, killed Christians who owned and read it.....BROUGHT us the Bible?
You have the audacity to suggest that without the catholic church GOD would be incapable of keeping his word whole and unchanged?
Wow, looks like someone is egregiously ignorant of the history if Western religion. just wow....
yeah, thank a bunch of greedy murders and tyrants. BRAVO
Debate anyone and you’re wrong. I know you won’t cause it’s all lies
Astrophysics and Cosmology does exactly the opposite. Why do creationists have to lie about EVERYTHING?
What an absurd comment.
@@dave1370 Are you addressing me?
You are just another ****off making unsubstantiated claims--if you have an argument, post it.
If not, troll someplace else.
@@professorneturman2249 clearly, “professor” 😅
What else could they do to support their moronic ideas?
Still peddling the same old nonsense.
And fools like you offering scoffing rather than counterevidence. Talk about peddler.
A Toyota tundra would make it to the moon and back 🤣
Science. Coming to a conclusion no matter where the evidence leads.
Creationism. This is the conclusion I want. How can I make the facts fit?
Utter rubbish.
@Σά ββας Interestingly you are describing the creationist stance with one omission: You forgot the flood of lies.
No we start with the understanding that the Bible is true, make predictions based on that, and then test to see if our predictions are correct. It's called the scientific method
@@jubileeYAVEL...
you couldn't be any less accurate.
You obviously don't understand the differences between apologetics and Science.
Science never starts with a presupposition, but apologetics always do.
You are doing just that. starting with a presupposition and only looking for information to support it, all the while ignoring the information that doesn't.
You literally admitted, in your own explanation, of doing what you claimed you don't do. That's priceless.
@sinjinbritt3371 ok how do you make predictions? You have to start with a hypothesis.
Call it a hypothesis or presupposition
The important thing is to test it and examine the evidence.
That is science
@jubileeYAVEL ....
your problem is that you don't understand the definition of either.
The hypocrisy, irony and charlatanry exhibited in this video is astonishing, and the incredulity and intellectual laziness of those who fail to recognize it is just plain sad.
This guy believes in the moon landing.... I had to tune out.
The earth is not flat and there is no invisible dome preventing things from passing through it.
A globe earth fits the facts where a flat earth has so many problems its not funny
Amazing Bafoon!! This joker must teach in Schools😅
Please tell me you don’t honestly believe that god created all this, most of it outside of our ability to see it until the last 20 years, just for us puny ape descendants on this little insignificant rock? Billions of stars in billions of galaxies, just for us?
@@gregoryt8792 I think you need a better drink toon of ‘proof’……
Insignificant.....hmmmm. That can sustain all sorts of life forms.....insignificant? That carries billions of conscious worlds, each unique in its own lifetime? Are you sure you want to insist on the word "insignificant rock"??
Does the Word of God say He did it just for us? Or was it primarily for His own glory and which we get to benefit from as His only creations made in His image?
@@Shabeck100 Who exactly heard any mythical gods speak?
@@professorneturman2249 Could you please re-phrase your apparently fallacious complex question for clarity? I think there may be a good question hidden in there :-).
Are there any other examples of energy changing speed because of direction?
yes
@@sinjinbritt3371 ?
Better question is, assuming 14+ billions of years of existence, outside the statistically insignificant time we've been measuring and contemplating these things, are there recorded measurements of energy in situ over the life of the universe that were left for us so we can conclude that the measurements have been constant?
If you want to be the skeptic, that's good. Be skeptical of it all. Assuming constants without statistically historic evidence is not just absurd, it's reckless.
@silverbackhayabusa right! So no constants exist then. What's your point?
@@constructivecritique5191 Feel free to quote where I said that.
Oh, I didn't? You're either lack basic reading comprehension are purposely misrepresenting my views? Got it.
Come back to me when you can be serious instead of stupid.