Creation Scientist Overthrows Einstein’s Relativity

WE interrupt this blog to bring you an incredibly important article from Answers in Genesis (AIG), one of the major sources of young-earth creationist wisdom. The article is modestly titled Research at Answers in Genesis.

It was written by Jason Lisle, whose creationist writings are familiar to our readers. He’s described at AIG’s website as a Creationist Astrophysicist — whatever that is. As we’ve noted before, AIG has an entire page devoted to information about this amazing man: Jason Lisle, Ph.D. Until recently, that page had a reference to his doctorate appearing both before and after his name, so we always referred to him as “Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D.” Now that they’ve cleaned it up (perhaps due to our prodding), we’ve been calling him Jason.

But because of today’s news, that fuss about titles seems embarrassingly disdainful. Considering the importance of what we’re about to report — this may be the most momentous post we’ve ever made — Jason is entitled to all the honorifics one can bestow. Here are some excerpts from his history-making article, with bold font added by us:

I have been working for some time on solving the “distant starlight problem.” This is the issue of how starlight from the most distant galaxies is able to reach earth within the biblical timescale. Although light is incredibly fast, the most distant galaxies are incredibly far away. So, under normal circumstances we would be inclined to think that it should take billions of years for their starlight to reach us. Yet, the Bible teaches that the universe is only thousands of years old. Solutions have been proposed by creationists, but we haven’t had a definitive answer . . . until now.

Wow! Jason has the answer. We’ve written about the creationists’ “starlight problem” before. See: How Old Is The Creationists’ Universe? Let’s read on:

It has taken a lot of time and effort, but I have found a solution to distant starlight which allows light to reach earth virtually instantaneously. Moreover, I have found both Scriptural and scientific support for this solution. This has led to the development of a new cosmological model which makes testable predictions.

We told you this was big news. We learned about it at PZ Meyers’ blog, so he gets the hat-tip. Let’s continue:

I have nearly finished writing a technical paper on this topic, which will shortly be sent to various experts for qualified peer-review. If it passes peer-review, we will publish the paper in the Answers Research Journal. This is our free, online journal. So be watching for it. If the paper gains the support of experts in the field, I may later write a non-technical article that summarizes the model.

Pay attention now. Jason isn’t submitting his paper to a prestigious science journal, the editors of which will send it out to be reviewed by experts of their own choosing. Instead, he’s going to send his article to experts of his own choosing for “peer-review.” If his own experts like it, then it will be published at an AIG website — Ken Ham’s own creation science journal. Here’s more:

When other qualified scientists with a correct biblical worldview offer constructive criticism, it can be very helpful in refining an article or technical paper.

No doubt. It’s always good to have someone check those scriptural references. Here’s the end of Jason’s article:

So, keep an eye on the ARJ website for the latest research on distant starlight and cosmology from within the biblical worldview.

This is exciting! We’ll probably be clicking on that link ten times a day until the paper gets published.

Update: See Another Creationist Assault on Einstein.

Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Creation Scientist Overthrows Einstein’s Relativity

  1. waldteufel

    I knew it! I knew it!

    I read this AiG article earlier today by Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph. D., and while licking my lips and narrowing my eyes . . . muttered darkly to myself that The Curmudgeon will be all over this like a chicken on a June bug!

    It’s just soooooo precious when creationists with too much book learnin’ put on their rented big- boy pants and pretend to be scientists.

  2. waldteufel says:

    … muttered darkly to myself that The Curmudgeon will be all over this …

    I’ve become too predictable.

  3. AIG to Lisle! AIG to Lisle!

    The Bible does NOT teach that the universe is thousands of years old. It says nothing at all on the subject of age. How you interpret “In the beginning…” as “thousands of years is a mystery.”

    Please clean out your desk. Security will escort you to the parking lot.

    In other news, young earth creationist Paul Nelson failed for the 6th year to produce his Opus Minimus on “genetic depth” or whatever. Rumor has it that Nelson said to Lisle, “Show me yours and I’ll show you mine.”

    Now, let the mocking begin!!

  4. Doc Bill says: “Now, let the mocking begin!!”

    Let’s wait for his paradigm-shattering paper. Then we’ll mock.

  5. Just use the RSS feed. Much less work.

  6. But…but…he put in “a lot of time and effort” figuring how to squeeze billions of years of starlight into 6,000 years. He deserves all the acclaim such work should get.

  7. how to squeeze billions of years of starlight into 6,000 years.

    I have a hunch it will involve a ShamWow.

  8. I had the enjoyment of reading some of his earlier posts on this “problem”. He wrote an article in 2001 in which he stated that light traveled at only half it’s normal speed when going away from an observer, but was instantaneous when coming toward the observer. (wtf?)

    He also said that cosmologists weren’t present at the big bang, so whatever they say about the origin of the universe is just a speculative story but isn’t real science.

    I can’t wait to see his new paper, with “testable” predictions. He probably sent it to Jack Chick for peer review, which won’t take long.

  9. Prediction: the light was created already in progress.

  10. Gumlegs says:

    Prediction: the light was created already in progress.

    That’s too obvious. I predict it’ll be some reference-frame mumbo-jumbo involving God’s unique viewpoint.

  11. He talked about reference frames in earlier posts (well, sort of). The key is that he promised that his new cosmological model will make “testable predictions”. I can’t wait for that. I also loved his claim that he will publish in the AIG journal, then later maybe write a non-technical version that will summarize the model. LOL. So now, the AIG journal is a technical journal? hahahahaha

  12. http://specialtheoryofrelativitywrong.blogspot.com/
    Special theory of relativity is wrong.
    You can check and verify proofs that reveal Einstein’s mistakes in deriving special theory of relativity by visiting the above mentioned link.

  13. Lalit says: “Special theory of relativity is wrong.”

    Yeah. And I’ve got a link for you: The Time Cube.

  14. Sorry I’m late this morning but I got lost on my way home because my GPS gave me inaccurate directions because the General Theory of Relativity calculations used by my Garmin are WrONg!&*^%

    I’m also going to sue my math, physics and chemistry professors, or their estates (it was a long time ago) for teaching me how to Einstein’s equations INcoRRecTlY!!^$%%

    (and I’m going to throw in Maxwell and Newton for good measure. Fluxions, bah!)

  15. Doc Bill says: “Sorry I’m late this morning but …”

    It’s about time you dragged your sorry frame in here.

  16. Gabriel Hanna

    I looked over Lalit’s contribution to special relativity. He has discovered that velocity has directional components, and that if you want to calculate time dilation and length contracti0n correctly you need to look along the velocity that the object is moving in.

    Einstein and everyone else in the physics community already knows about this, but Lalit thinks that he’s the first to figure it out.

    It is the typical mistake of the self-educated: misunderstand the science, show that the misunderstanding leads to absurd results, and pronounce the scientific community to be stupid.

  17. Gabriel Hanna says:

    It is the typical mistake of the self-educated …

    Darn, I was prepared to accept his claims. After all, it’s on the internet.