Young Earth vs Old Earth Debate (1/10), Ken Ham & Jason Lisle vs Hugh Ross & Walter Kaiser

[GinaToySculptor]

There is no Biblical Account for the age of the earth in the Genesis account.

[Mrhawklanz]

I take the Bible over Science anyday.

[TheMuffnstuff]

funny how they cut ken off alot, open genesis God called the light day and the darkness he called night! why do they argue something so simple, people keep running from God, he is not a God of confusion, so if he says day he means day.

[ParasiteQueen1]

God created everything in 6 literal days, and He rested on a literal 7th day.

[RespectMyHate]

@ParasiteQueen1 Amen. And our modern day week continues to testify to this truth.

[usernameofnobody]

Oh me oh my.

[Pilgrim1411]

ALL of the Church Fathers believed the earth was less than 6,000 years old at the time they wrote. Read GENESIS, CREATION AND EARLY MAN, by Father Seraphim Rose for the truth.

[graymatter247]

you know who is missing in this debate? god. he should explain his book, just saying

[7BroncoBoy]

@graymatter247 He explained it plain and clear, but there are guys like Ross and Kaiser who want to look wise in the world's eyes, therefore they compromise on the truth.

[angryspidertv]

@7BroncoBoy I don't know what you mean by 'compromise'. If you mean looking at science, which is the simple observations of nature and trying to fit it into the simple and easy to understand words of the Bible, then that's hardly compromise. I don't see what problems you have with the Big Bang model... it's perfectly biblical. Look up verses:

Ezekial 1:22, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15, Job 9:8, 26:7, 37:18, Psalms 18:9,104:2,144:5, 2Sam 22:10, Zech 12:1

[7BroncoBoy]

@angryspidertv The big bang totally contradicts the order of events in God's word. The Bible has the earth created 3 days b4 the sun, moon & stars - totally the opposite! The big bang starts the earth as a hot molten mass & .7 billion yrs later the ocean forms. The Bible has the earth covered in water on day 1. the BB contradicts Ex 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them" The BB takes place over billions of yrs rather than a few days.

[jimbxb]

@7BroncoBoy thats one giant leap for stating the obvious

[joshuahardy95]

There debating as if they are great scientists the top of there profession.

[7BroncoBoy]

@adam3251 Actually there are published creationists in the field, but not many. Do you know why? Do you think a Muslim magazine would allow an article by a Christian author refuting Islam? So why would the high priests of the secular humanist religion allow a scientist publish scientific evidence in the journals that would refute their religion?

P.S. Your use of filthy language got you blocked. Another one bites the dust.

[thone2008]

Biblical text does not teach Creationism, its misinterpreted to think it does.

[7BroncoBoy]

@thone2008 Really?? What verses are misinterpreted and how?

[willywonka661]

@7BroncoBoy

try..genesis and creation:genesis 1:1-micheal heiser

[7BroncoBoy]

@willywonka661 how is it misinterpreted?

[CarloOnU2ube]

@thone2008 It most certainly does. Want proof?

[Tomekwinxs]

6 people have a closed minded view.

[7BroncoBoy]

@Tomekwinxs You and 5 friends? Or are you open to the scientific evidence for creation and a young earth?

[7BroncoBoy]

@adam3251 I guess you have a lot of scientists to prove wrong.

[7BroncoBoy]

@adam3251 I'm sure you assert they are not credible if they believe in a young earth. But their are lots of PhD scientists who believe in a young earth.

[Freethinksman]

Religion is fine when it sticks to what it knows: blind faith. When it tries to justify itself using the same science by which we have learned about physics, it falls flat.

This anti-intellectualism runs so counter to everything we know to be true it makes otherwise reasonable, rational people look and act like fools. Most people don't walk in front of moving busses thinking God will suspend Newton's 1st law for them. Why apply those absurdities anywhere else?

[7BroncoBoy]

@Freethinksman The blind faith used by the evolutionists and atheists, who reject the evidence for a priori.

These type of people believe on blind faith and admit publicly that scientific laws had to be suspended for the Big Bang to take place or for life to be produced from non-life.

[Freethinksman]

@7BroncoBoy There's a *huge* difference between claiming knowledge, and admitting ignorance. There is no reason to believe the story of creation but for circular argument. "The bible is authentic because the bible says it's authentic". Imagine using that reasoning in *any* other facet of life. "I'm not guilty your honor, as I can prove by maintaining my innocence".

Why not just admit the fact that *we don't know*? You can choose to believe despite reason, but please, just admit it.

[7BroncoBoy]

@Freethinksman We have to be willingly ignorant to not know. Besides the obvious knowledge of God's existence just by looking at the stars, the plants, the animals, there is so much evidence for the Bible's veracity through history, archaeology, prophecy, science etc, that there's little reason for anyone in western culture to not know.

You obviously haven't looked at my videos on this channel or my other channel, slaves4christ - they are all about evidence for the Bible and the Creator.

[Freethinksman]

@7BroncoBoy I will look at your other videos. While I stand in awe of the natural world, I simply do not see any evidence- inferential or otherwise- that any one thing caused all of it to happen. Something set the ball in motion, but to get from that acceptance to "and that thing manifest itself as a human 2000 years ago solely to sacrifice itself to itself for my sins" seems beyond unlikely. The only evidence for it is a claim that it happened. Faith is antithetical to truth-seeking.

[7BroncoBoy]

@Freethinksman Is there any logical possibility other than God that could "get the ball rolling"?

May I suggest you give "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus" by Dr. Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona a read?

[Freethinksman]

@7BroncoBoy There are an infinite number of possibilities. We don't know all the forces that exist in the physical universe, and we haven't thoroughly explained many that we do know. To narrow down the possibilities to a single entity that has knowledge, shows love, demands respect, doles out punishment, and is immune from all other laws seems to blunt the awe of merely accepting the number of possibilities that could exist.

I'll check out that book.

[7BroncoBoy]

@Freethinksman In other words you have no clue of any other possibility.

[Freethinksman]

@7BroncoBoy This is silly. You're not going to stop believing dinosaurs and people coexisted, and I'm not going stop believing in the theory of math. So we really have nothing left to discuss. I do take solace in the fact that evolutionary biology and the scientific method in general is rapidly overtaking faith as peoples' basis for understanding the world. It's a slow slog, but it will come. The truth will indeed set us all free.

[7BroncoBoy]

@Freethinksman Set you free from morality...I understand your desire to believe this fairy tale.

[7BroncoBoy]

@joshlazarus Just imagine...the supernatural creator of the physical universe could actually defy the natural physical laws he set in place...

You are obviously ignorant and haven't looked at the evidence for a young earth. You just believe your religion by blind faith and won't consider anything else.

[7BroncoBoy]

@FallofDarkness55 No arguments, just name calling. I think it's obvious who is being childish here.

[Voltar143]

when the word "AND" is uttered, it is possible that it is not part of the "evening and morning" as a whole but it is to be understood separately. but if it is part of the

[7BroncoBoy]

@Voltar143 what?

[Canlander7]

Even a child can understand the text. It's ONE 24-HOUR DAY!

[duffontap]

This was a fascinating and instructive discussion. The casual debate format really helped to highlight the nuances in the different creation models. Thanks to 7BroncoBoy for posting this series; I watched every video with great interest. We can only hope that this comment section will reflect the panel's hope: that Christians can continue to discuss this topic with mutual respect and Christian love.

[JOOGAL1111]

@duffontap they can be civil all they like but they are 4 morons living in a fantasy world. Ken ham should be taking to court for the amount of misinformation that toilet bowl of a website has in it. I weep for the good christians these morons fleece for cash and delude them with outright lies. piss off back to oz ken !!!!!!

[VforVideo]

This pretty much closes the book on Ken Ham being an arrogant fool. :)

A summation's of Ken's Argument: "My Hebrew scholars are better than your Hebrew scholars."

Dr. Kaiser: "The count of time doesn't even begin until day 4. Ergo, how can we presume that the bible gives us any evidence of a young earth?"

One argument is humble and biblical, the other is arrogant, self assured, and based less on "literal" interpretations than it's proponents will admit.

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo Actually, Dr. Kaiser pretends he is smarter than all the Hebrew scholars when he says something ridiculouls like that.

There was light on the 1st day. The first 6 days have the exact same form with evening, morning, number, day - just like any normal 24 hour day.

There is nothing there to give a clue that these days could be extraordinarily long.

[VforVideo]

@7BroncoBoy

There is no evidence that there was light on the first day. The Earth was formless and empty...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the deep...AND THEN God said "let there be light" (I cannot assume this is the creation of the sun, or the moon, or even the stars, but that God simply created light).

Stop trying to justify Genesis with silly creation science. Humbly accept, as Dr. Kaiser has, that Genesis is not a book of science.

AiG makes all believers look foolish.

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. "

If you can't comprehend that when God said “'Let there be light'; and there was light" that there was light, I don't think there's much hope for you to understand the Bible or science.

[VforVideo]

@7BroncoBoy

That's fine. Just don't pretend you're doing evangelism or even apologetics then. If the aim of AiG is to turn people away from God's word...then you're doing a fantastic job.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that this is merely a debate. The Bible itself takes no position either way (young or old earth)...but cults like AiG make these "open handed" issues into something more, and that is simply not okay.

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo I proved you wrong so you're going to resort to name calling and say that whoever believes the Bible, and therefore does not believe like you is a cult?

[VforVideo]

@7BroncoBoy No sir, I do believe Ken Ham is teaching a false-gospel however. Preaching justification through a brand of 'science' that can hardly be called as such as he subtly suggests that those who do not believe that T-Rex lived alongside man cannot take the Resurrection of Christ seriously ...implying that they are not true believers and have lost favor in the eyes of God.

This is unacceptable.

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo You are a liar. Ham over & over says that you can believe in an old earth or even in evolution & be a Christian. But u r going to have problems & contradictions when reading scripture, things like the fall and the curse make no sense, people tend t2 not take the rest of scripture as seriously & begin 2 compromise on homosexuality, abortion, having female lead pastors, not believin the miracles, the deity of Christ. They pass their weak faith onto their kids n they think its ridiculous

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo But Ham always says we are saved through our belief in the life, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Did you know there are 1000s of PhD scientists who say it's impossible to rise from the dead?

[cctman]

@VforVideo You have know idea what you are talking about!

[cctman]

@VforVideo BroncoBoy... Did you know there are thousands of PHD scientists according to you that are apparently duped too because they also support an alternative to Darwinian Evolution and its millions and billions of years? Lets face it, if you took away Darwinian Evolution there is no way you could see the Earth as that old. So who is really being duped here? Too many Christians are inconsistent and have jumped into bed with the atheists religion of Evolution. Same thing happened in the OT.

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo If the 1st 3 days represent billions of years and the other 3 creation days are normal days, and animals were not created until the 5th day, how does the progressive creationist account for the fossils of animals from hundreds of millions of years ago (in the old earth view)?

[VforVideo]

@7BroncoBoy

The "progressive creationist" can only look at what the Word of God says. I don't think any part of the bible gives us the age of the earth. You're using an extremely narrow reasoning to come up with a number (ie adding genealogies) which is really silly.

You're going to have to accept the fact that many of your brothers and sisters won't accept your version of a "literal" genesis. It's anything but "literal" biblical interpretation to say that the universe is 6k yrs old.

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo A progressive creationist desires the approval of man rather than God. So they take billions of years that are made up to evolution seem plausible in the minds of the gullible and they try to force it into God's word. The same people who gives us the lies about evolution and say there is no God are the same ones who give us billions of years.

So many I know who call themselves Christians and believe in billions of yrs don't take the Bible seriously in other areas either.

[VforVideo]

@7BroncoBoy

You are walking a fine line sir. I cannot judge your heart, but if you are questioning the spiritual justification of Christians who believe in an old earth then I implore you to read Galatians.

As for the following statement: "The same people who gives us the lies about evolution and say there is no God are the same ones who give us billions of years." I think this is a rather glib assertion and I encourage you to google ' Dr. Francis Collins.' -Head of the Human Genome Proj

[7BroncoBoy]

@VforVideo I never questioned the "spiritual justification of Christians who believe in an old earth." You are outrageous and ridiculous!

The fact that people who hate God made up the billions of years to support their anti-God religion of evolution does not mean the true believers in Jesus Christ cannot be fooled by such things.

[cctman]

@7BroncoBoy So very true!

[cctman]

@7BroncoBoy Very good point... Never seen anyone tackle that one before.