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

Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis president, is perhaps the most widely recognized creation-apologist in the world today. He and AiG astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle engage Drs.Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe) and Walt Kaiser (president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), both of whom are proponents of an old earth, no-global-flood view of Bible interpretation. In this eye-opening debate, well-mannered disagreement is punctuated by intriguing confrontations as these four Christian leaders communicate their views.Ham and Lisle implore Ross and Kaiser to accept the Genesis account of history as written, while Ross and Kaiser argue for their view that the first chapters of Genesis are more symbolism than history. This specially prepared version, produced by AiG, features the exact programs as edited and broadcast by the John Ankerberg TV ministry [ http://www.jashow.org/ ].

Links to the other parts of this video:
1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwA7bvco7ow
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J7xt563Caw
3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mXUPV_GgxY
4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzZCeHeNEvY
5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W9eX6RhcPc
6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6tMJmh4qmI
7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXGCsZ5Ynk
8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGJnaqzAJBU
9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgw-n0s8LKE
10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kM1cvhIZQ4

Featured speakers
Ken Ham, [ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp ] president and founder of Answers in Genesis [ http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org ]
Dr. Jason Lisle, [ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_lisle.asp ]researcher and speaker for Answers in Genesis
Dr. Hugh Ross, [ http://www.reasons.org/about-us/our-people#hugh_ross] president and founder of Reasons to Believe [ http://www.reasons.org/ ]
Dr. Walt Kaiser, former president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary [ http://www.gordonconwell.edu ]

Get the 5 DVD set of this debate here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/GREAT-DEBATE-on-Science-a...

Get the AIG App for your smartphone:

iPhone - http://bit.ly/gKArQi
Android - http://bit.ly/gYa1SK

Video copyrighted by Answers in Genesis http://www.answersingenesis.org

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• The
• Great
• Debate
• old earth
• young earth
• debate
• Bible
• Genesis
• biblical
• authority
• God
• Hebrew
• interpretation
• metaphor
• history
• literal
• Ken
• Ham
• Jason
• Lisle
• Hugh
• Ross
• Walter
• Kaiser
• John
• Ankerberg
• Show
• Reasons
• to
• Believe
• Answers
• in
• creation
• evolution
• yom
• day
• science
• scientific
• creationism
• Christianity
• Christian
• controversy
• darwin

[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.

[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

[mjewing8]

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

[blongtshiab09]

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

[PvtSenba]

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

[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!

[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 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 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 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.