So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't actually very scientific - indeed, for Ai G to use him as a leading scientist is practically a sham, as it leads their audiences to think that his ideas - which aren't really his ideas, just the same old tired arguments - automatically have credibility due to his real Ph D.His postgraduate research concentrated on solar dynamics, utilizing NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Lisle's academic progress was not hindered by his creationism.D.dissertation committees might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs, their evaluation of his work was based on his research and not his personal beliefs.
- Meet and fuck no cc needed for messageing
- who is dating who
- Ghana live hot girls cam com
- Is camcontacts free
Lisle responded to the "pre-publishing" critics (hilariously overusing the word "embarrassing", and never really naming any critics specifically) by basically saying people should have an open mind until they read the paper.
However, his explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak.
It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically".
It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do.
in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado Boulder.