Young Earth vs Old Earth Debate (5/10), Ken Ham & Jason Lisle vs Hugh Ross & Walter Kaiser

[mandrillx]

this isnt a debate it is a bunch of those AIG trying to use the bible as proof of creanists lo ,totla fail ,the bible is flawed it couldnt be use as proof pof any thing ecept how gullible and brainwashed people can be.

[mjewing8]

As a believer also, might I suggest that all of us agree to disagree?

[PvtSenba]

This guy is a terrible moderator; the old earth guys don't need a third.

[blongtshiab09]

@PvtSenba So true...gets annoying. SHHHH Dr. John. SHHH!

[solaphyde]

What? Jason says the big bang is a secular alternative to the Bible? I'm curious how this is. It sounds to me like young earthers make this claim a lot, but what do they even mean by saying this??? The big bang theory isn't either secular or Biblical in and of itself. It's when you believe the prime cause behind the big bang to either be personal or non-personal that determines that! As Christians we ALL believe the big bang. Jesus spoke and BANG! Why is this simple issue made so difficult? :(

[7BroncoBoy]

@solaphyde Besides the myriad of scientific problems, the big bang is a secular idea that Christians have tried to insert into the Bible along with billions of years and it contradicts the order of the way God stated creation happened. See answersingenesis. org/articles/nab2/does-big-ban­g-fit-with-bible

[solaphyde]

@7BroncoBoy No, certain interpretations of the big bang might have more naturalistic tendencies, but the big bang in general is shows that time, space, matter, energy had a beginning. The big bang was originally believed to have supernatural leanings, hence why secular scientists at first rejected it. You can't let AIG = the Bible.

[7BroncoBoy]

@solaphyde So do you just take what scientists say about the big bang, mix it up and try to fit it with the bible?

The big bang doesn't agree with science or the bible. You can't let science, especially science done by haters of God = the Bible.

[solaphyde]

@7BroncoBoy Again, I clearly said that Scripture teaches that Christ created all things finite (john 1:3), and the big bang essentially says there is a first cause to everything finite. Also, there's the fact that the big bang was first rejected because of these very supernatural undertones. How am I mixing here?

AIG is driving a wedge between things that we shouldn't and that Scripture doesn't. It is in this very way that AIG is hurting itself.

I'm not an atheist so please allow my comment.

[7BroncoBoy]

@solaphyde So you just take "God created" and ignore everything about how God said he did it? Of course we agree God created, but the rest is disagreeing with God's word.

[solaphyde]

@7BroncoBoy Then all you're saying is that you don't accept the "standard Big Bang theory" which naturalistic scientists hold to. And I agree. But you do believe in a big bang 6,000 years ago. That was my point. 500 years ago many would have argued the way you are, and said the Bible says the earth is flat.

A big problem with AIG is that they have a wooden literal interpretation of the Bible. And many of their arguments in this debate were double standards. I could list them if you want.

[7BroncoBoy]

@solaphyde I do not accept the Big Bang at all! The Bible says says God commanded everything to come into existence and it did just as he wanted. It says nothing about a big bang. God did not need to blow up to create - that's almost as dumb as using millions of years of evolution to create animals & plants rather than just speaking them into existence.

AiG advocates taking Bible passages in the sense they are intended. When a passage is written as history, we take it as history!

[AndyG792]

@solaphyde The Big Bang has many problems scientifically whether it be billions of years ago or 6,000 years ago; as well as contradict the order of creation. God didn't make the sun until day 4 and if it was through a big bang, then the sun should have been there before day 4. the big bang has changed from one form of big bang to another form because of the scientific problems that they have had but, in changing they keep coming up with more problems. See videos by Dr. Jason Lisle and Russel H

[Stinukli]

@jon82hall As Stephen Jay Gould said: "Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference." This is the trap that you went into here.

[cctman]

I'm really sick of hearing John continuously interrupting Ken Ham throughout this entire show. He is completely biased and so this is not a fair debate. Do you guys see how right before each break he cuts Ken and Jason off continuously? And how come he didn't give Jason as much time to talk as he did the other 2 guys?

[Daibhidh464]

@cctman, anyone with half a brain can see how hostile and biased the moderate is. He was not interesting in listening to Ken and Jason, but rather trying to put words into their mouths and make them look stupid. Sigh.

[ssleidl]

I've watched the debates with Dr. Ross and he doesn't use the scriptures as the foundation for his views. This debate is about HIStory whether we speak on the subject of science, history, theology, etc. Peace

[yelshaable]

God bless Ken Ham and Jason Lisle! :)

[digitalblasphemy1100]

its old because i said

[whitechocolate220]

young earthhhhh