Saturday, April 03, 2010

Hugh Ross vs. Jason Lisle Debate: Thousands or Billions?

In this 'in-house' debate about the non-salvation issue of the age of creation, astrophysicist Hugh Ross (old earth) and astrophysicist Jason Lisle (young earth) present their best case for old earth and young earth perspectives. This is an interesting look at some of the key points to consider on both sides of the issue. The debate was respectful and well-moderated on KKLA. Wintery Knight has provided his synopsis/recap of the discussion here.

Full MP3 Audio here (40 minutes)

Enjoy.

For further research from both, see Hugh Ross's book A Matter of Days and Jason Lisle's book Old Earth Creationism on Trial.
Posted by Brian at 7:30 AM
Topics: , , , , , ,

9 comments :

Anonymous said...

Brian, thanks for cutting out those commercials. I'll update my post to point to your version of the MP3 instead.

Saturday, April 3, 2010 at 5:23:00 PM GMT+1
Anonymous said...

Once again, Hugh Ross spends most of his time jumping through hoops to add unfounded assumptions to the Bible in an unnecessary attempt to reconcile billions of years with the clear and plain meaning of Biblical text. Jason Lisle comes out on top, just as in the Ankerberg or Fullerton debates.

Monday, April 5, 2010 at 3:24:00 AM GMT+1
Lee said...

"astrophysicist Jason Lisle (young earth)"

Sorry... when I see young earth and astrophysicist - it amazes me.

Oh, and I look forward to listening to this.

I think Hugh Ross arguments are normally poor when it comes to trying to match up science with his religion but at least he accepts the science which is more than any young earther

Lee

Monday, April 5, 2010 at 10:29:00 AM GMT+1
David said...

Andy,

If Jason Lisle comes out on top, then the Bible is wrong.

Monday, April 5, 2010 at 3:46:00 PM GMT+1
Anonymous said...

wow. talk about a crazy debate. Its so hard to follow all the logical fallacies of each. But why try to pretend they are twisting actual science to work it out over their own delusions and faith?

I would have liked for them to clarify how plants were made before the sun though, especially when one believes its millions of years between each day.

Monday, April 5, 2010 at 8:51:00 PM GMT+1
Unknown said...

Neither of these two have shown themselves to be reliable sources of scientific information.

Jason Lisle's Visit to Tucson

Hugh Ross' shocking fairy tale

Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 7:21:00 AM GMT+1
Manny A. Rosario said...

The host did a good in moderating the debate, unlike Ankerberg who blatantly displayed bias.

Manny Ambanloc Rosario

Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 11:23:00 PM GMT
Anonymous said...

"If Jason Lisle comes out on top, then the Bible is wrong."

Lisle's entire argument is for the authority of scripture.

"at least he accepts the science"

There are no observations in science that require an old universe, especially if you believe in the omnipotent, self-revealed Creator.

Monday, February 21, 2011 at 7:14:00 PM GMT
Anonymous said...

"I would have liked for them to clarify how plants were made before the sun though, especially when one believes its millions of years between each day."

That's a question Ross has to answer, not Lisle. There was light before there was a sun.

Monday, February 21, 2011 at 7:16:00 PM GMT

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.

Blog Archive

Amz