Image via WikipediaThe discussion seemed to center on how the question affect how you view and have confidence in the Bible. I personally agree that the Bible is correct and we should make all effort to understand what the Bible says. In both Lisle's and Hovind's theology I see a few problems
1. They argue that plants are not alive because they don't have consciousness.
2. They ignore that the genealogies in Genesis don't list every single generation.
3. They think that nothing died but plants (but according to them plants are not alive) before Adam sinned.
In addition Ross made a major point. Many times this debate centers on Genesis 1 and 2 but ignore the fact that the Bible does discuss it in other passages: Job 38; Psalms 104; and Proverbs 8. This is an awesome point. And I did not like Lisle's response, I don't think we can say those passages are poetic.
I was real disappointed how Leslie did not try to engage Ross on the Astronomical and Physics that Hovind failed miserably to be able to do. I would have like to see how Lisle would explain how he can see that the earth is only 6000 years old from astronomical information. I find that my attitude towards the subject fits much closer to Hugh Ross' attitude.
Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. Hugh Ross Debate: Special Webcast - Answers in Genesis
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uiGL6XgUz1z3j8moa417lBuGOl8T_ccu7DRoRbPgRqPzMAqFuzDHWLYFywYiEPCIy76i-1zNTsr0p6or2P9veKeKDEuMpJZsIwd5qKh1d5wdo3JVkHB92F3-d96YWATO_ENSOfa-y1vxHBOgTD_iA=s0-d)
You've definitely gotta check out the lengthy video debate on the answers in genesis website. In radio exchanges, its easy to have unanswered points. But I think the video debate to which I refer will offer a lot more clarity to some of the unanswered points.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the astronomical and physics, I am far more impressed with the young-earth position, which in my opinion, focuses far more on the biblical data than the old-earthers, which seem to focus more on the scientific. However, even from the scientific aspects, I find the young-earth position to be far, far superior. And there are a plethora of articles on the answers in genesis site as well as creation.com which support the young earth view scientifically.
Mike, you can find the same debates from reasons to believe. The difference is that they are unedited. AIG edits their debate videos only showing the parts that favor them. RTB gives you the whole footage. It is easy to look like the stronger position when you edit your weak points out. AIG's position paints them into a corner. I remember being At a conference with ken ham. He made it very clear that if you didn't believe in a young earth position than ultimately Christ death was powerless. This is connected to animal death not being before the fall. So if science can prove the earth is old and the was animal death before gen. 3 the YEC foundation of faith is destroyed. That it s serious corner to be painted into. Especially since the argument for no animal death before the fall is made more by inference than clear passages in the Scripture.
ReplyDeleteLucas, can you please show me specifically where AIG "edits their debate videos only showing the parts that favor them?" I find this very hard to believe, but I will be happy to concede if it is the case.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Christ's death being powerless, I think that statement would have to be very carefully qualified. And its not about if "science can prove the earth is old and there was animal death before the fall." I care more about what the Scriptures tell us, and then go on to interpret the world through that grid.
And no animal death before the fall is actually very clear. If you would like to read an extended discussion of this in encountering Ross' position, please read Sarfati's book "Refuting Compromise."