The debate is available on DVD and is titled: The GREAT DEBATE on Science and the Bible The Young Earth vs. Old Earth with Ken Ham, Jason Lisle, Hugh Ross, & Walt Kaiser
Answers in Genesis was nice enough to post the Debate in their media section of their website. To watch the debate CLICK HERE. Please respond with your comments.
Stan:[Can you admit the Genesis 1 account may not be literal?]
ReplyDeleteDan: Absolutely not! It is literal. Just look at the Fourth Commandment and why we keep a Sabbath you will understand that if it were not literal then there would not be a need to keep the Sabbath Holy back then.
Stan:"So the fourth commandment couldn't possibly be metaphorical, recognizing six periods of creation followed by a period of rest, and equating them with the commonly experienced period of a day? It's not possible?"
No it's not possible for the simple fact that God is talking about day and night days not periods of time. He is too specific. Explain Genesis 1:13 "And the evening and the morning were the third day."
Stan:"Just" looking at the fourth commandment is hardly definitive here. "Just" assuming the text to be literal denies an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence, in virtually every field, to the contrary. "Just" assuming that 'Moses' had a clue how god may have created anything is preposterous.
If you are trying to justify the Bible through the "lens of man" then you would be hard pressed to believe it. Believing Noah lived for 950 years is an act of Faith and Trust, true?
Stan: "Remember, your position requires the backward belief that the plants were created before the sun (nevermind the earth). Your position requires that the moon is a light designed to govern the night. Your position requires that the planets were not created in the six days provided. Your position requires that somewhere beyond the sky lies an enormous volume of liquid water.
All my position requires is that the first chapter of the bible be considered as metaphorical.
Note that the age restrictions your position holds requires that we make a great deal of assumptions in every area of science, virtually all of which render science potentially impotent every day. In order to explain the vast distances revealed by astronomy (which necessarily indicate ages beyond a mere six thousand years, by six orders of magnitude), you must posit a fluctuating speed of light. In order to explain radiometric dating, you must posit fluctuating rates of decay. In order to explain biological diversity, you must posit hyper-inflated evolution, but in order to distinguish it from the prevailing Theory of Evolution, you must also posit massive restrictions on this hyper-inflated evolution.
At what point do you stop and say, this is getting a bit complicated, cumbersome, and unnecessary?"
There is a great deal of assumptions from some scientists also as Dr. Jason Lisle was discussing. My common sense doesn't understand how animals and mankind was created in one day. The difference is that I believe IN God, I believe He said what He said as truth. If I am wrong He will explain it to me. Unlike you, I won't throw the baby out with that murky water. I am saved through Jesus no matter what I believe and to me that is the most important part of this discussion. Get saved and we can have this debate, like these gentlemen. At least they all believe in Salvation through Jesus Christ. Something we should ALL agree on.
You got a nice blog here. Keep on posting!
ReplyDeleteThank you Laura and welcome. Chime in anytime if you disagree with anything I say, I have been wrong before. As you know, we are fallible.
ReplyDeleteBlessings