Hugh Ross & Eric Hovind - Age of the Earth Discussion (Old Earth vs. Young Earth Creationism)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- Hugh Ross links -
reasons.org/
/ reasonstobelieve1
Eric Hovind links -
creationtoday....
/ creationtoday
Bibledingers links -
Website: www.bibledinge...
Patreon: / bibledingers
Instagram: / bibledingers
Twitter: / bibledingers
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
As a new Christian, I so appreciate Dr Ross's insight and delivery.
He is an excellent communicator
I took an astronomy class with Dr. Ross and he allowed questioning him on any subject without getting nasty because he knew through working through the question his points would show themselves to be true. I met Ken Ham one time and when I questioned him on why we can see supernovas that happened millions of years ago not thousands and he tore into me as some kind of plant to attack him.That wasn't the case at all, a group of friends and I went to hear him speak and we all had different backgrounds and wanted to see how he thought. His nastiness was noticed by everyone that night and when I called him on it later face to face he just blew it off. He can't take a simple question when Dr. Ross took every question every night of my class. It made Mr. Ham look unsure of what he was saying, Eric seems more like that line of thinking to me. God wouldn't plant false evidence for us to be deceived by what we can clearly observe today and in the past.
agree.
Rick, Just wanted to chime in and say hi. I enjoyed this discussion with Dr. Ross and appreciated what I thought was a good back and forth dialogue. I do get what you are saying about "God wouldn't plant false evidence..." but if you take that approach, then you would have to agree that it can go both ways. If we adopt an "old earth" perspective, then you now face the problem of all the "young earth" evidence. Why would God allow so many things to exist that make the earth and the universe appear to be young? In the argument, that would also be "deceptive". That's why I believe the argument is flawed.
@@erichovind6236as an astrophotographer I can shoot the universe as God created it and it's clearly older that young earthers views. I know the young earth views are not even needed to cancel out the idea of evolution which is why it came about in the first place. Had evolution never appeared nobody would be pushing a young view. I met one person who actually believed in a young earth before I took Dr. Ross's class and he was allowed to attend without paying so Dr. Ross could explain why he follows the old earth view. We then went to see Ken Ham and after his explosion over my simple question he realized the young viewers seemed to be insulting the old earthers because they couldn't actually make good clear arguments in defence of their ideas. When you said Dr. Ross was being less than honest a number of times I though of Ken Ham that night. If someone say's you are being less than honest they are calling you a liar in my world and why he didn't call you on that I don't understand because I'd have nailed you the first time you tried slandering him. If you actually believed your view you wouldn't need to stoop to that level. Dr. Ross let it slide each time showing his class and confidence in his view. So back to my astro work, you must be saying God lets me image things that are young when clearly they are old which means God made it to look old and that would be dishonest and he can't be can he? You must believe that a supernova was created already exploded since the light takes in some cases millions of years to get here so before you believe God created the universe. There is no false evidence out there at all, maybe it's not understood 100% but God isn't lying to us. Young earth is as far out there as flat earth to me but as Dr. Ross said, our salvation doesn't depend on it. It's really a very silly argument when we have much bigger issues to deal with today when it comes to salvation. I believe your view is flawed but even if I'm right God won't hold it against you of you eventually change you mind.
@@epicrick Indeed I too am thankful that our salvation depends on the truth of the risen Savior. As I stated in the conversation, "The Age of the Earth is not essential to Salvation, but it is essential to the doctrine that we need Salvation." Death before sin is the issue. Using Starlight as the main argument against Young Earth is a problem because quite frankly there is still so much we don't know about light... We do know that Gravity affects time etc... so I am more concerned about the multitude of pieces of evidence that demonstrate the earth and universe are young than the few that show that God created it mature. If you have a chance to listen to the previous conversation I had with Ryan I think we discuss some of the better points.
Agreed
It is obvious that Dr. Ross is a true follower of Jesus Christ because he handles himself as the Savior has taught us to do. I cannot say I feel the same about Eric. Thank you Dr. Ross for your honesty, sincerity, and logic.
Are you saying that you don’t know if Eric is a Christian based on this debate?
I don't agree with Eric, but don't question his faith.
I know exactly what you mean. It IS obvious. It’s beautiful.
Eric needs a few more decades under his belt before taking on such a gracious and learned scholar and scientist. Eric comes across as condescending and defensive in his arguments to the point of treading water so as not to drown in truth and the somewhat uncommon reasoning of a well studied man such as Dr. Ross. I’m with you Hugh
The focal point should never be a certain style of debate or how one debates or about how one can win an argument, or even the best way to do things. The focal point is the stand alone truth of God’s word. The word of God is the truth. The word of God is the absolute authority. Both sides have a stable of scholars, scientists and literature to support their positions. Both sides claim the authority of God’s word. What stands alone is the plain reading of the truth-the word of God. To this point, Eric did an excellent work defending Sola Scriptura.
Exactly... it seems to me that Eric appeals to intellectual suicide. His "debate" skills are poor because he depends on emotion OVER intelligence. I, personally, feel he is wasting my time every time he talks, and that is indeed a disservice to Christ and Christianity.
The wonderful clarity of Religion 🙄
Eric is clearly passionate about his position. I have been reading and listening to Hugh Ross for the past few months. Hugh Ross is so logical, clear and informative in his explanations, while simultaneously upholding the inerrancy of God's word, that I have become convinced of his view on an older universe.
Hugh Ross is trying to bring his Neo-gnoticism into apologetics to confuse and deceive, just like Hitler. Hitler did precisely the same thing.
Hugh invents things out of thin air and jams them into the text. It’s amazing how people miss this.
If the aim is to bring souls to salvation I'm more drawn to Dr. Ross. As I'm also drawn to what is scientific I have to admit my desire to marry what is Biblical to what is scientific. Dr. Ross does that quite eloquently. I also appreciate his ability to maintain a demeanor throughout his debates. Which is a necessary trait that exudes a certain humility.
Man it’s too bad Eric seemed very defensive and condescending. Too be honest, I was in the fence with this issue, but Dr Ross poses a solid argument - and his demeanor makes it easy to listen and receive his knowledge.
Hovind wasn't having a debate he was giving a lecture.
He kept ignoring everything and just giving a unrelated PowerPoint presentation 😂
I'm constantly blown away by the patience and calmness of Hugh Ross. Man I look up to this guy
His foundation is not scripture it's not on what God has said that's a problem
@@justinwilson3694Kindly illustrate with an example.
@@christianapologetics5783 he said he would change based on not scripture but what some sinful scientist has said.
Calmness and patience don't equal correctness or scriptural consistency my friend.
His spirit is commendable for sure. The problem is, science is his ultimate authority.
Dr. Ross is so knowledgeable and graceful...... what a gift from the Lord.
Sadly, he let his old earth world view dictate his interpretation of Scriptures.
If this conversation were the only thing to decide on…. Ross wins, the earth is old
Scripture also never says that Adam spent 5 seconds to name each creature, so Eric is also 'adding' to Gods Word. At least Ross is using logic to suggest that naming thousands of creatures probably takes longer than 24 hours.
Specially since language and meanings weren't established yet, so you can't just name them based on what you see, because even those meanings weren't established yet.
@StalemateNZ You might want to go back and read Genesis 2 verse 19 and 20.
19. And out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every foul of the air, and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name there of. 20. And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the foul of the air, and every beast of the field.
@@silentwarrior75 what até you trying to say?
@@silentwarrior75 I don't see where it says that Adam did that in one day though?
@@StalemateNZ Correct, it doesn't, however, in context ch.2 is a summary/explanation of ch.1, which is 6 literal 24hr days. Yes, he should not have said 5 seconds, but what Ross says and teaches also adds to the word of God.
Tedious. Hovind is beyond patronizing. I'm so glad Ross didn't respond in kind.
Yeah ... I find that a lot of YECs use humor and slideshow pictures as a way to draw attention from the weakness of their argument.
The YEC's overall have a very aggressive, bitter, ignorant, and disrespectful reactions to Dr. ROSS from the years I've watched
No he wasn't. He brought his points and debated his disagreements with Dr. Ross in a respectful manner. I am not a believer in YEC, but this was a respectful debate.
Brilliant display of patience, no doubt.
Hugh has always been a very kind and patient man in the interactions I've seen.
I agree with Hugh Ross. Nature reveals God. In fact those who never hear the gospel are without excuse before of God because they have the revelation of God in nature.
My stars this is painful! Once again Hugh Ross reigns supreme.
Eric, you have a lot to learn about having a respectful debate.
Eric have a lot of learn about science as well
So interisting to read this comment and at the same time look two comments back.
"At the end of the day, both are Christians and debated in a friendly and respectful manner. Well done."
Agreed, Dr Ross lavished peace offerings and started with focus on what was agreed together, what did he get back? .... lets just say he didn't that sort of response back. Dr Ross waited patiently after Hovind finished then responded but Hovind kept interupting him. Check it out around 35 minutes mark.
@Eric Hovind you, like your father, have a logical issue thinking that saying "bible clearly states" means you are right. Clearly states isnt an argument or factually based. The biggest problem today it seems is so many people like yourself dont actually know the writings in its original text but will state with such confidence that that you are right. Nobody knows how old the earth really is. We cant use arguments like God doesnt need millions of years like your dad claimed Hugh did. Hugh didnt claim God needs this amount of time or that amount of time. He didn't need 6 literally 24 hr days either. He also doesn't need to rest. So sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This is hilarious because Mr. Hovind is correct about what the Bible says…..which proved the Bible is incorrect. But instead of either one of these two accepting that, they’ve made it work for them….on one hand, science proves the Bible is wrong, so science must be wrong(🧐🥴), and on the other hand science says this, therefore the Bible doesn’t say that, I’ll interpret it this way, because the Bible can’t be wrong. (Also, 🧐🥴)
I very much admire and commend Dr. Ross for his incredible long suffering and patience with Eric. I have never seen such incredible selfishness, impetuousness, eccentricity, misinterpretation, turning the tables around, And a misunderstanding of the clear statements being presented as I have seen demonstrated by Eric here. I wish him the best blessings and peace, however.
I always find it incredible that old Earth people are being charged by YEC with believing in scientists, but when I read YEC articles and books, they are quoting scientists left n right that they are trying to get to support their specific interpretation of the creation account.
With all due respect, the moderator should never have let Eric move forward with his Grand Canyon slides when doctor Ross had no opportunity For almost 2 hours to even bring up one slide. Eric demonstrated incredible selfishness and immaturity and I really hope he takes this opportunity to See how badly he behaved And change course. Umbelievers really are watching ,which is what I am afraid of in these instances.
Literally OMG - and this was the easy-going and non-aggressive Young Earther!! They can have whatever lunacy they like, but the real poison is in insisting you must agree with them in order to be a christian. That makes it a sect.
Hovind never said you have to believe young earth or you are not a Christian.
Such a graceful and intelligent argument thank you Dr Ross you are such a great teacher
He is a gracious and well spoken man
Notice who always interrupts and the one that listens
I find it so so sad that there appears to be such an inability of one side to let the other side finish, even if there are comments made that need defending, notice how the other side patiently waits his turn to then respond to the claims point by point and making corrections after, not during. May be a testament to the age difference and therefor a difference in the way one carries a conversation, but I've noticed this with almost every debate between Dr. Ross and those who oppose him, that they all love to cut him off to defend themselves or their views, while Dr. Ross patiently waits for them to finish. It just makes me wanna listen to him more intently than the opposition, simply because I sense much more wisdom in the way he speaks compared to the fleshly reactions by the others. It makes me question how confident they are on their perspective. It teaches me the importance of really honing those listening and communication skills when it comes to engaging with people because boy, can you lose an audience by such simple outward traits even if maybe your arguments hold merit, you turn off the listener by your mere inability to wait your turn and calmly respond and simply make your arguments, rather than becoming defensive and interrupting all the way through your opponent trying to respond to your own "accusations" that you had just made a minute before. It makes you look arrogant, and difficult to want to listen to.
Just out of curiosity, are interlocutors allowed to interject for clarification of terms, definitions or ideas? Or just sit there writing their questions on a note pad until their turn and respond all at once?
I can't believe Hovind is even trying to debate Hugh Ross. And is Hovind trying to say if you aren't a young earth creationist you aren't a Christian?
yes, yes he is... he exclaimed as much during his debate with InspiringPhilosophy over the same issue, though IP has a different interpretation
Wow, Eric not only knows science better than any scientist in any field but he also knows what God really thinks and wants. What would mankind do without him.
😂
Gets it from his dad... literally!! 🤣
@@alexanderingraham8255 Even the jokes
Ross is so patient.
Dr. Ross is such a blessing to the church!
He may be but I think he's wrong in his understanding of Genesis.
@@ScriptureOnlyIsTruth What is the correct understanding?
@@delbert372 "And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day." That sounds like a 24-hr day to me. For Dr. Ross to see millions of years instead of a 24-hr day from this text is quite bizarre.
@@ScriptureOnlyIsTruth Sounds poetic to me.
@@delbert372 For me, it sounds more like a historical narrative, rather than a poem
Eric's position is based upon questioning Mr. Ross's respect for God....that's inappropriate.
I noticed the same thing. 🙏
His Dad debated Hugh Ross years ago, and it was the exact same thing. There's an assumption if you're not young earth, you MUST be lying or uncommitted.
You also have your own presuppositions, Eric. And Dr. Ross is right, we need to lay down our presuppositions before the Scriptures and see if they are in line with it or against it.
I lost more and more respect for Eric as this discussion continued. All he could do was attack Dr. Hugh Ross rather than come up with a logical and coherent argument. Brutal.
I am a former young earth creationist. I was on a mission to finally prove that the earth is 6 thousand years old.At this point I am unable to return to a 24 hour day view.With 20 + years engaging this debate I love it .If nature is corrupted or fallen at the fall in the garden, then the young earther has to deny psalm 19. To me it boils down to we’re the laws of physics the same from the beginning of creation .or did they change at the fall .I think scripture and science supports Dr ross .and another thing to think about there was a fall before Adam and Eve ,Satan was in the midst of the Garden in Gods very good creation
I also believe if it wasn’t for science ,the church would still teach geocentrism .And it used the scriptures to back it up. I believe we are in a time now the church is being corrected.And God is raising Godly men to help unpack these discovery’s
@@Terrylb285 I too was a young earth believer and followed ICR 30 years ago, then I read Hugh Ross' Fingerprint of God. I prayed earnestly to know which ministry was right. One of several times in my life I heard God's whisper "ICR preaches dogma; Hugh Ross saves souls." Many have come to Christ through Dr. Ross and reasons.org. I fear ICR & AIG preach to the choir who fear science without seeing God is the Author of both nature and Scripture. Correctly interpreted nature and Scripture have to agree. (PS. I knew of a guy in Mobile Al with your name)
@@erkashbee6504 it’s funny how Ken Ham ,Eric and other young earthers accuse Ross of bringing something outside of the Bible (science) to interpret genesis. When they are guilty of what they accuse Ross of .they bring in there western culture modern day understanding ( which is outside of the Bible and bring that in to interpret genesis.proverbs 3:5/6 lean not on your own understanding
@@Terrylb285 Your comment about Galileo 10 days Ago, I think, hit the nail on the head. When Galileo confirmed that the Earth was not “fixed on its foundation” as Psalm 104 and other verses read, the Church had to interpret this verse differently. As Hugh Ross says, God is the Author of Scripture and Nature, when they are correctly understood, they will agree.
@@erkashbee6504 ua-cam.com/video/fvvP-RC9RJo/v-deo.html start at the 42 minute mark and 20 seconds I think you will enjoy all the responses
OK, I was not going to comment on this as I am no expert. However, I can't help myself. To Eric, I would humbly suggest that you change your style for starters. The world is supposed to know we are Christ-followers by our love for one another. You can say you love Dr. Ross all day, as you did in this video. However, you are not actually being loving in your style, which undercuts your amorous statements. Do you literally do time-out hands with your wife while saying "Time out! Time out!"? Are you that condescending to her? If so, you guys should seriously get some marriage counseling. Your condescending style of literally time-outing and incessant interrupting of Dr. Ross was embarrassing to me as a Christian. I don't want anyone who is thinking about whether or not to follow Christ think that your style in any way emulates the Master. Jesus said about Himself that he is meek and humble in heart. Not trying to be rude here myself, but you came off as both rude and proud. Not saying that you are, but that is how you came off. Dial it back, brother. Learn how to listen without interrupting. We are not in a race. You don't have to hurry to make your point. Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit, which Dr. Ross displayed the entire debate! He never once flinched, nor rudely interrupted you. He didn't act flabbergasted and wave his hands around like a person unhinged when he did not agree with you.
Secondly, I am not an astrophysicist. Maybe I should call myself and astroturfphysicist. In other words, I have a keen eye for what is fake or fallacy. Eric, you constantly, and I mean constantly interrupted Dr. Ross to show him your slides from the Grand Canyon. I'm glad you enjoyed your vacation, but you used the Grand Canyon as your main visual evidence of young earth while simultaneously stating emphatically that nature is corrupted and that we cannot use nature as evidence of anything because it is corrupted! What?! In other words, when Dr. Ross wants to point out something in nature that shows the earth as older, you shout, "Stop! Nature is corrupted! You can't use that evidence!" Yet when you finally show your single Grand Canyon slide, you think you are going to lay down your trump card. You teach that we can trust nature in that very slide! Your contradictions are immense. You either can or cannot trust nature. I would encourage you to trust the book of nature on everything as God is not contradictory as you are. He does not say one thing in His Word and then do something different in nature.
So let's get on to my third point. When Jesus was being tempted by the enemy, Satan told him to throw himself down off the temple and that the angels would catch him. Now, if we look at this more deeply, Satan is quoting scripture in a very straightforward (or what I would call young earth-minded) way. It does, in fact, on the surface look like Jesus could do just that and count on that promise. Even Satan believes the Bible. However, Jesus not only knew what the scripture actually meant, He also knew how and when to use it. He knew He was not to interpret that scripture as a literal command to Himself at that time. In other words, Jesus and Satan both believed the scriptures. Satan seemed to believe in inerrancy, but Jesus was not concerned with inerrancy, he was concerned with the TOTALITY of scripture, much like Dr. Ross, who pulls from various books of the Bible to understand creation. So Jesus defeated Satan by quoting a different, more appropriate scripture back to him. I feel that if you were there for the showdown and were blindfolded, not being able to see who was talking, Jesus or Satan, you would have chosen Satan's side and said, "See it's right there in the scripture! The most natural reading is to throw yourself down!" Listen, I don't fault you. Even Jesus's own followers did not at first recognize him on the road to Emmaus. Jesus had to explain to them from MULTIPLE Biblical texts who He was and what He must suffer. Even then they did not get it. It was not until the relational aspect came into play, the breaking of the Bread, that they recognized Him. Jesus said the Father loves revealing Himself to such as children. He loves showing himself to humble people and He loves hiding Himself and His truths from the proud. It does not surprise me at all that Dr. Ross "got it" before he had the evidence of what had been revealed to him. God does that all the time. Jesus reveals Himself to those who obey Him, regardless of age. The Father revealed to a fisherman that Jesus was the Messiah. No man nor Hebrew scholar taught him that. The Father revealed the highest truth to Peter. So, who are you to incessantly question and attempt to invalidate and call into suspicion Dr. Ross's testimony regarding these insights he received when he was 17? Again, I found your condescending manner and rudeness intolerable on this point. But then again, maybe you have not experienced the types of revelation Peter did or that Dr. Ross did. I don't blame you. I just say please try a different approach. It seemed you were really going for "cool points" by showing pics of your family (even though they look lovely and congrats to your daughter) and your motorcycle, etc.. When you have someone in the room, as it were, of high level intellect and as humble in manner, and who has served the Lord in ministry with a global impact for decades, please do not take one second away from meaningful conversation to show me your MOTORCYCLE! Respect those who have gone before you, who are much smarter than you or I will ever be, and who have worked much harder for the kingdom than we probably ever will. I believe we are to treat each other as we want to be treated and I would sure hate for you to see Jesus one day only to have him give you time-out hands.
Just think Rosina ,Eric Hovind is actually a big improvement on how a lot of young earthers treat Hugh Ross,in debates.Even when I was a young earther.I watched Eric’s father debate Hugh Ross on the John ankerberg show.if you get a chance you can watch it on you tube.
@@Terrylb285 thanks. I watched it. Like father like son. And his dad and mentor in all this served a 10 year prison sentence for disobeying the laws of the land?! I had no idea. How then is he a reliable source on the laws of the universe? If you don’t understand basic tax laws how can you understand the mysteries of the universe?
ua-cam.com/video/v_hxG2qZg58/v-deo.html
@@rosinafischer4230 most young earth creationist will come around eventually,just like the early church when they believed that the sun revolved around the earth and they used scripture to back it up
@@Terrylb285It's a reactionary position largely. Kent behaved the same when he debated Hugh several years ago.
@@Lambdamale. That was my turning point from holding to a 24 hour day position. I watched the debate in anticipation that Kent would concrete my position. Now I am unable to even entertain a 24 hour day position based on scripture and science.
The heavens declare the Glory of God. Over, and over, and over again, creation is crying out testifying that God is the creator of the universe. Our focus should be on this. Not on matters of things the Bible didn't even intend to teach. The age of the earth should not be contorted into being the point of Genesis 1. The point of Genesis 1 is that GOD created everything, and it was good.
But Genesis is pretty clear on the age of the earth. "And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day."(Gen 1:5). "And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day." (Gen 1:8), and so on... The universe was created in 6 literal days. To read millions of years in these clear texts of Genesis is quite bizarre.
@@ScriptureOnlyIsTruth Millions/Billions of years is easily explained when you look at Genesis written in Hebrew. The original Hebrew words backs up the evidence for the Gap Theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2
Having a discussion with Eric Hovind is like having a discussion with an 8th grader.
Who says you can’t? A better comparison, if you wanna call someone immature, would be to say it’s like debating a 5 year old.
Hovind is way out of his element that is for certain. I don’t know of his educational background but he certainly is not anywhere close to Dr. Ross’s level so yes, he comes across as an argumentative teenager but at least he is not nasty and vindictive like his father!
Eric shows nothing of Christ to me. Hugh Ross exudes the Spirit. One is repelling, the other is inviting. This topic, though interesting, isn't the main thing. Winning souls to Christ is, and one of these two men is failing, imo.
Eric needs to grow up and also grow in his extremely simplistic view of God and the Bible. I always believed earth was young because that is what I was spoonfed UNTIL I actually studied Bible for Myself!
When I first read Genesis at age 17 I also assumed that "day" meant a period of time with a distinct beginning and end. I did not assume it would be 24 hours because the sun had not been created until day 4. I also left it loose to trust that God created in an orderly, systematic way that revealed his glory. 45 years later, I still have similar beliefs. The more I have studied science, the more I see the glory of God and worship Him in humility.
Excellent work, Dr. Ross. Thank you for showing the fullness of God’s creative power.
Thanks for watching Patrick!
I think Dr. Ross is wrong in his interpretation of Genesis
Hugh Ross won the debate
In his background Dr Ross gives impressive qualifications whereas Eric shows photos of hi family
Once again Dr. Ross is a calm, reasonable debater who is patient enough not to interrupt. I think some stricter & more guided moderation would've helped make the time more valuable here.
Dr Ross was very patient with Eric Hovind.
Eric and his father might have the same view point which i disagree on, but eric is so much more levelheaded and calmer than his dad
“De tal palo, tal astilla.” “Like father like son.” I see a young Ken Hovind arguing here. His dad used condescending comment on his slides, so is Eric. By the way, where’s the passage in the Word of God where it says that God created an old looking young earth? Also a student has to be quite careful in the use of logical fallacies, because common sense establishes that professors expect sources of authority on every research assigned. And in linguistics, one must endeavor to find those who are authorities in the language.
Notable Christian who hold an old earth position
or are open to such a viewpoint:
John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
John Lennox
Dr. James Montgomery Boice
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey
Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield, among others.
Wow a lot of people have the old earth view…it must be true!
@@byronrhodes1659 most of the time yes
@@averagepcenjoyer4827 no, this is a logical fallacy. That would have made Copernicus and Galileo wrong. It makes anyone with a new scientific theory wrong.
@@byronrhodes1659 hehe, well it seems to be an unending argument. God will reveal the correct interpretation. 😊
CHRIST said that the world will know HIS children by the way we treat each other and others .
Eric Hovind keeps saying that is a wrong interpretation or that is not what the Scriptures say but did not ever give us exactly what is the right interpretation nor what the Scriptures say on those verses that Hugh Ross quoted.
And he was trying to look kind but acted with great hostility against Hugh Ross. Same way his father acted when Hugh debated his old man before.
Boy the apple did not really fall away far from its tree.
I've got no love for Eric, but Kent is still way worse imo.
Dr Ross just humblely brought it in this.Even if Ross is wrong, he showed more humbleness and intelligence in this.
I believe the evidence when the Bible is read in its ancient context points towards old earth God bless.
Yes, read it yourself. Truly just read it yourself. What did the first verse say? And then the second verse. What does that suggest to you? Without Hugh Ross, can you be dogmatic about young earth? That can only be if someone teaches you and not when you read it yourself
Eric Hovind seemed a bit flustered. His facial expressions and tone. Think he was more focused on how he'd argue back, rather than actually listening to Hugh. Unfortunate
I think that part of the problem with this dialogue is that Ross is presenting his perspective in a dialogue format and Hovind is giving a prepared presentation in a monologue format. I can imagine Hovind presenting these same slides in a youth group format to a high school audience. The key point of division is whether “day ages” are a potential interpretation of Genesis, and whether they are the best interpretation of Genesis, but we ended up going down a slideshow rabbit hole.
With respect to Hovind’s claim that YEC’s do not claim that the laws of physics have changed, I can say that my own Christian high school’s Young Earth Creationist textbooks argued explicitly that the “Darwinian/naturalist” assumption that the laws of physics are consistent across time was an unfounded assumption. Hence, the ability for us to see light from other galaxies was explained by either A) arguing that the speed of light has not been constant or B) creation with apparent age. I am sure YEC’s disagree, but it’s perfectly fair to say that many YEC texts question the consistency of the laws of physics themselves.
There was a bit of miscommunication on the format so it wasn’t quite as organized as we’d hoped.
It's been proven that light speed isn't constantly the same .
Dr Ross has outstanding integrity, both biblical and ofcourse scientific. I'm glad I've discovered his work.
I was brought up to believe 6 literal days but Hugh Ross had made a very compelling case, and the science backs him up. Most young earth Christians who debate Ross really get nasty, but Mr. Hovind kept his cool for the most part.
Yeah Hovind was displaying feminine energy, very passive aggressive.
for the most part...
Just came across this…. Eric’s arguments and points are trivial, and sounds like he has never spent time in a college lab or physics class. It’s frustrating that my YEC brothers and sisters use these arguments, but again not a salvation issue. Hugh Ross is a class act the whole time, and makes clear and concise points.
Thanks for watching Racquel!
I disagree. I think Dr. Ross is superimposing his fallible Science knowledge onto Scriptures. It's dangerous which could result in misreading God's infallible revelation.
@@ScriptureOnlyIsTruth spoken like a Ham....."If you don't agree with me you are a Galatians 1 Christan Rapist..." It's so tiring. Wow.
@@DarthMWAL "And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day." That sounds like a 24-hr day to me, not an indeterminate length of time. If you think that's millions of years, you are reading something that's not in the text of Scripture.
@@DarthMWALAre you a Believer? If so, you need to check how you’re talking to other siblings in Christ. We can debate but we are not to resort to condescending comments or insults.
Doubling down. Why is Eric the only one with big slides? Eric clearly lost this debate. It’s not even close
Unfortunately there was a miscommunication about the format so it ended up not being as organized as we’d hoped.
Dr. Ross's argument: "i talked to scholars about this"
Dr Ross has a scientific doctorate and Eric Hovind doesn't. Dr Ross argues from a biblical and scientific perspective while Eric Hovind only refers to the bible. Eric Hovind's lack for scientific knowledge reduces his credibility in my opinion. At the end of the day, both are Christians and debated in a friendly and respectful manner. Well done.
Thanks for watching Bob!
Hugh Ross is always so generous toward his opposition to the point that even though Eric Hovind was using the fallacious tactic of character assassination (abusive ad homs), Hugh Ross stayed in a very Christ like mindset. Eric Hovind needs to learn to stay on topic. The topic was not Hugh Ross. I have zero respect for that type. Eric Hovind is not qualified to be a teacher or an apologist.
Misty, I have to ask for some examples of this "character assassination" you are speaking of. I enjoyed the conversation and Hugh said he did as well.
@@erichovind6236 Hi, Eric. You falsely accused Hugh Ross of being an atheist and an evolutionist, neither of which were ever true. You tried to paint him as one who was influenced by naturalism, which he then attempted to mix with Christianity and so distort Scripture. If that isn't character assassination, I don't know what is. You should focus on the topic instead of on the person against whom you are debating. I trust that you understand that abusive ad homs are a fallacy and speaking against your opponent instead of against his arguments is illogical. Perhaps next time you will focus on his arguments and attempt to refute them while presenting your own arguments, instead of trying to tarnish his reputation. Note well that he never once said anything at all about you and of course he said he enjoyed the conversation because that's just who he is. He doesn't hit back. He stays focused on the topic. Learn from him.
@@regenerated4life I think you might have misunderstood what was being communicated. Saying that someone is using a naturalistic approach is not calling them an atheist or an evolutionists. I am not the one painting Dr. Ross as being influenced by naturalism, he has made it very clear that he was indeed influenced by naturalistic thiking from the time he was 7.
My arguments against Dr. Ross are not Ad Hom. My issues are,
1. He is presenting things that are NOT written in Scripture as if they are in Scripture.
2. He presents the Creation as the same now as it was before the fall when it is now cursed.
3. He has death before sin.
4. He can't have a perfect future because he doesn't have a perfect beginning.
The list goes on.
I don't question his salvation. I don't question his commitment. I question his putting modern science in front of Scripture.
When Hugh said that he would change his interpretation of Scripture if the scientists changed their mind on the age of the earth. That is what made it clear that he puts some aspects of modern science (which are still being debated) above Scripture. We are supposed to interpret Scripture with Scripture.
Just some of my thoughts.
@@erichovind6236 Go back and listen to yourself beginning at minute mark 31 since you seem to have forgotten the words that came out of your own mouth. You said that Hugh Ross said he was an atheist and came from a naturalistic perspective. Where is the evidence of that? Hugh Ross categorically denied that a number of times since you said that against him a number of times. Where has Hugh Ross claimed to have come from a naturalistic perspective? He denies it! You continued to say it no matter how many times he denied it.
1. False.
2. False.
3. How does one digest food?
4. Does not follow.
What is the gospel?
Young Earth creationists are always so arrogant and rude. They claim to take the Bible literally but they can literally be taken apart with their own arguments with a study through the Bible. If they want to take the Bible literally then let's go to Elisha and the young men that were mauled by the she bears. Try to take that passage about going up to bethel literally and then go look at the geography of the land and see how well that works for you. I can't hardly listen to one of these debates because of the arrogance that just seeps through the monitor from these guys. Blessings to you Ross for just being able to sit there and tolerate it. And I was raised a young Earth creationist but I separate myself as far as I possibly can from these type of ignorant know-it-alls
I understand the feeling. I was raised in that too. Most of my family holds to it and will start to argue with great hostility if you disagree with them on the slightest thing. It's really sad how divisive this is to the body of Christ. That being said I think that Eric was surprisingly cordial and respectful at least when compared to the likes of his dad or Ken Ham when they've debated Dr. Ross in the past and seem to attack him directly and question his faith. We need to remember that we're all brothers and sisters in Christ and we need to treat each other as such.
You need to check your spirit, my friend. We can disagree as Christians but you are not to resort to insults and condescending comments simply because you disagree.
I want to grow up to be like Dr. Ross' example of gentleness, kindness, patient, respectful as he seems to surrender himself to the Holy Spirit. I have had a bias toward a young earth, but I found Dr. Ross' explanations of Genesis ,while referring to other places scripture in context compelling. The thing that saddened me was that if you don't agree with Mr. Hovind, then he questions whether you are a believer. I find that many Christians do this kind of thing when others don't agree with them on non essential issues in scripture. This is the bigger atrocity.
This is the 2nd discussion I've seen with Hugh Ross & Eric Hovind & in BOTH--Mr. Hovind questions Dr.Ross' honesty & integrity, both indirectly AND directly. I wonder if he is aware that he is doing this? Dr. Ross has never gotten defensive but continues to clearly & patiently explain & gently corrects. Hugh Ross is such a model! ❤
Thank you Dr. Ross. It's mind boggling to me how anyone can look at all of the amazing science and technology God has given to us to see His wonderous creation more deeply yet hang on to a 6 day creation. Most YECs would never apply that mindset to their every day life. I feel bad for Eric. He is all over the place.
Hang on? The Bible clearly defines day as evening and morning. Yes, it can have different meanings but that doesn’t mean you question the original meaning and context. The reason we can see three different meanings of day in genesis 1/2 is because they asre there and clearly used that way. We can all read and see and understand the the different meanings right away, but to then say that therefore we can now redefine the meaning of evening and morning makes no sense whatsoever. By that logic we can redefine the other two uses of day in genesis to mean one second and 1,000 years. We would never do that, it makes no sense. I choose God’s word as truth everyday and so do the Christians I know, it is a mindset I can live with.
There are many other scientists who utterly disagree with Dr Ross's interpretation of data and you fail to realise you have chosen to accept this interpretation. God created everything in 6 days, you have chosen the word of man over God.
You're talking out of bias because this young earth creationist proves that you're lying by his behavior alone.
@@cecilspurlockjr.9421 Stop sucking on the teat of consensus and actually research how much assumption is plugged into the data's results, once assumption is a part of an equation it is not science.
@@spamm0145 Gee, I never thought of doing research. Jackass .
It is obvious that Eric Hovid isn't listening to Dr. Hugh Ross. Just because Eric comes off with enthusiasm doesn't make his points right. Ross often was giving factual examples only to have it cut off multiple times. Also, Eric keeps making statements as truth by saying "that's wrong," "I believe..." Just because he says something is right or wrong doesn't make it so; and neither does talking over someone's points doesn't. Your beliefs and feelings are irrelevant. Keep showing your slides, but that doesn't support the actual facts nor science.
Hugh Ross ALL DAY !!! This man is a blessing
AMEN!!! 🙏
This discussion shows what happens when people don’t have basic understanding of science and how to understand information,That is far too often the case among us christians.
I find these veiled personal attacks by Eric towards Dr Ross to be quite irksome
Perhaps an example would help me learn.
@@infiniteepoch8 Right, so no personal attacks.... Thanks for clarifying. I assume Matthew thinks the same way. Dr. Ross and I enjoyed the conversation and hoped that you would as well.
@@erichovind6236 😂 you reply 3 weeks late and gave only one day grace for a reply back?
Honestly that "Right... So no personal attacks... Just clarifying" sounds like a child's temper
Listen to Doctor Ross all the time. Love him.
It's hard not to be rude about Eric Hovind, but his arguments are simply embarrasing.
Eric Hovind like his dad kept on interrupting Dr. Ross.
This is one of those debates that you really have to ask the Holy Spirit to lengthen your patience for YEC.
Their attitude is appalling whenever they engage in debates just like Ken Ham and his old man. With the exemption of Dr. Lisle whose demeanor I really like.
Agree
Yeah what a rude red haired Bucktooth Beaver he is
Eric was obliterated… it takes about halfway through the debate but he, Eric hovind, start acting like a drug addict
Eric lacks education in science and theology. He attempts to provide a good argument, but he is unable to debate on a level with Ross. This discussion would have been better suited if Ross could have dialogued with Dr. Mohler.
Hue Ross wife " what do you want for dinner " ? ' his answer.. " In what age are you going to serve me this dinner " ? ... The man just adds absolute conjecture and opinion it's the way God does things
To say God was on a 6 day, 24 hours each schedule seems so ridiculous to me. Old earth fits so nicely. Although this issue has no bearing on one's salvation, I appreciate the debate. Dr. Ross wins this debate hands down, I have not yet seen anyone defeat him. It seems to me that Gods spirit has been on him since youth to do just this.
Good job as usual Dr. Ross!
Thanks for watching!
Bad job Dr Ross
@@justinwilson3694 on what basis?
@@eddybella9073 God's Word
My question that i feel everyone should ask people like Hugh Ross is"if the flood of Noah was not a worldwide flood,did God break his promise many times when he said he would never send another world wide flood if it was just local?"
2 Peter 2:5 states the world of the ungodly was destroyed. That does not mean the globe. World does not have to mean Globe.
Did all the Kings of the "world / Earth' go to see Solomon as was stated in 1 Kings 4:34? - No.
Did all the people of the "world / countries / Earth" go to Egypt during the famine in Genesis 41:57? - No
.
A “Global” flood can’t happen.
Day 3 of Creation Genesis 1:9. God separated the land masses from the seas.
God's word is consistent.
Psalms 104:9. “SEA” boundaries were established by God and will NEVER cover the Earth again. FIVE TRANSLATIONS:
1) KJV - You have set a boundary that they (the seas) may not pass over, That they (the seas) may not return to cover the earth.
2) NASB - You set a boundary so that they (the seas) will not pass over, So that they (the seas) will not return to cover the earth.
3) ESV - You set a boundary that they (the seas) may not pass, so that they (the seas) might not again cover the earth.
4) NIV - You set a boundary they (the seas) cannot cross; never again will they (the seas) cover the earth.
5) NLT - Then you set a firm boundary for the seas, so they (the seas) would never again cover the earth.
*(the seas) added for emphasis.
No global flood.
@MutsPub You referenced KJV - You have set a boundary that they (the seas) may not pass over, That they (the seas) may not return to cover the earth. Return to cover the earth? Quoting this passage seems to contradict the fact that is was not a global flood. It does not state that it covered PART of the earth. And the word return implies that it will not happen a again, meaning not cover the EARTH again. The 2 Peter 2:5 argument is also not very consistant, but only your interpretation of it. Apply that argument with JOHN 12:31-32 31 “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself. Based on this scripture the whole world is ungodly as the ruler is satan. The same is in 1 JOHN 5:19 "We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one". Point I am trying to make is that we have to rely on your opinion of a scripture to followe your argument and that can't be applied consistantly, thus not with truth, to the rest of scriptures. The best scripture to proof a global flood is found in Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made THEM.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord - The only exception is Noah (and ofcourse his family and the selected animals as we later learn), the rest of humasn were ungodly, thus all humans, animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens are included. No exception further pointed out. So why only a local flood? Were there no animals or birds in the rest of the world? Why would Noah then have to build an arc, why not just move Noah to the place where there are no "ungodlyness" and then cause a flood on the rest? Why did he have to go through 100 YEARS of building an arc? None of this makes sense without a global flood. This is confirmed with Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, “They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” The same for the 6 day creation. Long periods of time just does not make sense and can't be applied consistantly and being nice, smiling and speaking softly should not convince you of this. Refer to “evening” then “morning.” Each description of the seven days of creation uses this format, clearly indicating a day that began at sunset. It was not plural and even if you interpret it as darkness, it still stays singular. Any other interpretation will only give rise to more unanswered questions rather than logical consistancy.
Recpect, thank you for the conversation
Ross is such a gentleman. The “plain and simple” reading of the text is such a trope anymore. I wish Hovind would’ve brought an argument other than this.
Ross is a legend.
I keep coming back to this question, “how is an ancient Israelite supposed to understand Genesis 1-3?” Isn’t that how we do hermeneutics, by seeing how the original readers would have taken this account? Seems they would have read it at face value, a day, evening and morning was an ordinary day. Also, if God did actually create in six ordinary days and that was the truth, how would God have communicated that? Would he say it any differently than he said it in our Bible?
It is the English YEC biased commentaries that causes the problem.
On Day 1 it states that there was (*) evening and there was morning, right?
Hebrew days start at sunset (evening), right?
So Day 1 starts at (*) evening and ends at the next evening, right?
What happened to the daytime before the first (*) evening? - doh!
Is that day -1?
Day ZERO?
The people of the era understood this.
They passed information down through oral traditions.
How do you have sunset or sunrise without the Sun?
That is an oxymoron!
Are you claiming that God was a pseudo Sun or light bulb that pretended to be the Sun?
If so, why didn't Moses state that very important fact?
Moses documented four initial starting conditions of the Early Earth correctly.
Moses documented ten Creation events in the correct chronological sequence.
But Moses left out that there was no Sun from the beginning?!
Are you calling God's word a lie?
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth." (Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz.)
a) Bereshit bara Elohim (Hebrew) - “In the beginning God Created”
b) et hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz (Hebrew): (*)"the heavens and the earth".
(*) *This is a merism, a figure of speech indicating the two stand NOT for "heavens" and "earth" individually, but "everything" (i.e. the Universe).
It is not about the Earth.
It is about the Universe.
(The word "Universe" did not exist in the Biblical Hebrew Language).
The Universe would include the Stars, right? Is our Sun a Star?
The Sun was Created in the beginning BEFORE Day 1!!
You don't think that the people would have known this?
The Hebrew word for Create is "bara". It is only used three times in Genesis 1.
a) In the beginning.
b) Day 5.
c) Day 6.
Read it!
The word (bara) is stating that God Created something new that never existed before. Don't confuse Create (bara) with made (asah). The Hebrew word for made (asah) in Genesis 1:16 is in the verb form that denotes completed action. Genesis 1:16-18 are parenthetical statements that indicate that the sun, moon, and stars had been made sometime in the past.
IN THE BEGINNING!
1) Dr. Ross teaches a literal 6 day Creation. Just not 144 hours!
2) Old Earth world view is not new. It has been around for almost a thousand years!
3) We are still in 7th day, right?
It has been thousands of years!
So much for your 24 hour days!
4) - Dr. Ross earned his PhD in astronomy from the University of Toronto in 1973.
- Dr. Ross conducted 5 years of post doc work at Caltech on Quasars and Galaxies.
- Dr. Ross continues to lecture around the world at the University level on both Theology and Science to this day.
- Dr. Ross is the Founder of Reasons to Believe (RTB) in 1986.
RTB currently has some 180 PhD VISITING SCHOLARS in various cross science disciplines.
As well as, Theology, Hebrew, and Greek Biblical texts, etc.
- Dr. Ross has been a Pastor for over 40 years that supports the inherency of Scripture - 100%!!
- AGAIN, Dr. Ross supports the inherency of Scripture - 100%!!
- Dr. Ross does answer questions on his Facebook and Twitter accounts.
- Dr. Ross has written 20+ books.
He doesn't make a dime off of this.
- Dr. Ross won the Texas A&M University Trotter Prize in 2012.
- The Trotter Prize is awarded at Texas A&M University and is part of an endowed lecture series. It is awarded "for pioneering contributions to the understanding of the role of information, complexity and inference in illuminating the mechanisms and wonder of nature" and includes The Trotter Lecture which "seeks to reveal connections between science and Religion often viewed in academia as non-overlapping, if not rival, worldviews.
5) The Church wrongly taught that the Sun revolved around the Earth until 1825!
Why?
Ill-educated science knowledge is why!
6) The wording of the Bible DID NOT change!
Yet they stopped teaching that nonsense, why?
7) Are we to wait another 1800 years before this YEC nonsense subsides?
Hovind can think Ross is wrong and still believe Ross takes scripture seriously. Both can be true.
Hughs intelligence surpasses Eric's beyond comprehension.
Hovind accuses Ross of appealing to authority then appeals to the International Counsel of Hermeneutics lol
Yeah, but that argument didn’t go very far did it. Because Ross actually requires his staff to sign something on inerrancy every year.
Dr. Ross, how about a debate with Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku, Dr. Lisle, Dr. William Craig, and a few others in multiple disciplines? That could turn into a debate well worth the popcorn.
That would be amazing. Neil, however, has stated that he will not debate such topics.
It wont give much, they all agree on the science.
Ross only difference is his involvement of the supernatural, which can not be demonstrated, so there is not much to discuss.
He has had a few with Lisle. A good one was with Dr. Wieland.
@@bryanp570 I've seen Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson debate people with lower education status than him, which is equivalent to an adult taking candy from a child. It's too bad he's not willing to go toe to toe with someone who is in the same scientific weight category as he is when it comes to astrophysics.
@@qurkatimilaz3787 the heavens declare the glory of God. When I see a car, an airplane, a piece of art or an architecture I don't need anyone to tell me that the object originated from an intelligent being. A disorganized yard indicates that someone may or may not live there, however an organized yard definitely indicates that someone is taking care of the property. I don't need to see the artist, engineer, architect or groundskeeper to know they exist, and no one would question my mental status if I make a proclamation of belief in the engineer, architect, or grounds keeper. At some point people need to trust their intuition and intelligence and not always demand physical proof for a being that is capable of being in multiple dimensions and being in different locations simultaneously. One day science may catch up and be able to detect God, but until then, we must use common sense.
"The natural man not understanding the things of God," is about perspective. In order to think like God, one needs to change their perspective by understanding God's purpose and covenants.
Eric Hovinds stance on this is more biblically supported.
Especially from the point that In the Ten Commandments it references the days of creation as literal days.
Lets not add or take away from Gods word to validate the theories of man.
I saw the holy spirit in hugh ross and the deeds of the flesh in eric hovind
This is a bit ambiguous
Ah yes, the Hovinds. Beacons of truth and morality. It's both amazing and depressing how many people will believe anything but the scientific evidence produced by scientific experts, on matters of science...
Ross gave his credentials
Hovind gave pictures of his family
That tells me everything i need to know about Hovinds argument
Yeah experts in tax-evasion his dad went to prison for it. Also his buck teeth are very irritating he looks like a beaver ready for lunch
Dr. Kent Hovind did a great job with his science videos. The only thing I'm aware of was his difference of opinion with Uncle Sam regarding the constitutionality of income tax. Dr Hovind's opinion was not a secret, which most likely contributed to the eventuality of Uncle Sam helping him change his opinion. This was an unfortunate event that definitely hampered his ability to be as effective as he once was.
Kent Hovind has no valid doctorate, and the only way he did a great job with his science videos is if you add "misrepresenting" to the job. There's a 30+ part video series on UA-cam citing studies, experts, and even Kent's own scientific citations all clearly disagreeing with Kent. Not that Kent and his handlers will let their audience find out, the series' very _title,_ "supposed lies in the textbooks", is on their channel's auto-blocklist. I recommend part 25, with its multiple great examples of Kent's favourite "science videos" citing papers by directly contradicting their actual findings. That's called lying.
My favourite saying from science is "New scientific studies suggest"......
Science is always updating or correcting
The word of God stands firm 🙏 Amen 🙏
From 1.09.00 Mr Hovind is losing it by being defensive and trying to justify himself. The fact that the pitch of his voice, and his rapid talking shows that he is definitely on the back foot. He appears to be grasping at straws to try and justify his position. Dr. Ross has won this debate hands down.
Dr Hugh Ross is such an impressive man with a very impressive mind
Highest compliments to Ryan Allen for his style. Too many others interrupt due to seeing themselves as overly important!
Thanks Eddy!!
At least Eric was truthful. He starts off by saying if you take science over scripture then sure you will come to an old earth.
It’s clear YEC is not scientific and Eric admits as much
"modern scientific interpretation" not "science". If you take "modern scientific interpretation" over scripture you will come to an old earth.
I love science and don't believe anything we have learned from "science" discredits God making the world the way He says he did about 6,000 years ago.
@@erichovind6236I came across your dad's videos quite a few years ago and loved his debates. as a missionary kid in Brazil, I also grew up on YEC views. What I wonder though is how time is affected in different parts of space and dimensions. It's said that a 15 yo traveling in space for 5 years would return to earth as a 20yo while his buddies who stayed behind would be 65 yo. Maybe that's why there's so much disparity when it comes to the time question. At some point scientists aged the earth older than the universe. Physicists believe there could be as many as 12 dimensions with multiple time dimensions. God can travel to a specific time dimension at his choosing just like we can travel to specific geographic locations. Is it possible that when God said evening then morning he was speaking about his time in his time dimension? It's as if he was bragging in a fun braggadocious way " yeah today I'm going to go make some stars" doing all that in one of his days would be easy because he's God. But even God paced himself in choosing to accomplish only 1 task for that day, because for him, he could have done it all in 1 day, or even instantaneously in his time dimension. But in our time dimension, is it possible that it took longer? The word yom can mean a day and it also means a time period which would satisfy the time period of both dimensions.
Dr. Ross shows a great deal of patience here dealing with Hovind. Eric was quite arrogant, condescending, and attempted to gaslight Dr. Ross. I really hope people will see things like this and learn to stop listening to Kent and Eric Hovind.
Can I show you another slide?
Wow, I listened to this for an hour and gave up. Eric you destroyed yourself. Now having read the comments below, I see
no one would seem to disagree. My heart grieves at the thought of this as your testament.
Checks and balance. There are people who are confident that both science and bible are in walkstep. This means that You have to look at both Science and the Bible to check your human bias. If interpreted correctly, both will align.
Well-said!
Agreed well said.
Eric Hovind is arrogant, theatrical, and acts like he is the one person on earth who understands scripture and science. He is so out of his league it is hilarious. Compared to 20 or more highly respected and professional other scientists, I have seen Dr. Ross debate, Hovind is the least capable.
Great conversation....God bless Hugh and Eric
Thank you for watching!
Lord, please humble me to love your word and your creation. Help me to discern between righteousness and nefarious motives. Keep my pride at bay, in Jesus' name!!
If Dr Ross is wrong., and I'm more inclined to believe he is, then I don't believe he would even consider conceding, because his life's work appears to be in this issue. It would be a huge blow to his position. I wrote this at the 33:15 mark.
simply because something is your life work does not necessarily mean that you are closed-minded to new evidences to change your perspective... It can happen, but im doubtful that Dr. Ross is was closed-minded as you may presume... he has simply has not been convinced yet... the Bible survives and Truth wins no matter if new evidences come to light.
@@FireFlanker1 I am a bible believer. But I believe his position is wrong. He excepts man's billions of years position whereas I do not. I believe in the literal 6 day creation. Thats my disagreement with him. I believe you assumed Something different. If Im mistaken. This guy has received very biblical arguments for a young earth many many many times and will not budge. So I doubt he will change
I skipped to the part where they're talking about whether Hovind said scholars who take the old earth view aren't Christian or something like that, and I have to say I agree with Hovind. I'm old earth, so I'd probably agree with Ross on the age of the earth, but Hovind didn't say old earth scholars don't respect scripture when he said their interpretation isn't valid. Ross should have dropped that point
Eric basically did call all old earth creationists stupid in several places in the debate.
It may be that creation is important to salvation but that does not mean that time lenght of creation has anything to do with it.
I only have to sail past the White Cliffs of Dover to see for myself that Eric, his father's clone, is talking nonsense.
🤣this is literally Kent hovind 2.0
Both of you are not exemplifying the kindness Dr. Ross showed to Mr. Hovind.
...so just another comment (I can't help it),.. naming the animals. Eric says he Adam could name 3,000 in 4 hours if you name one every 4 seconds. Just a few questions. How did he know what he was naming? Did the animals run by him and he just came up with names and also had perfect recall on the names and what the animals looked like? How did this information get passed to others? There were no pictures of the animals so Adam would either have to go find them or describe them to someone that also had perfect recall. If the names were not passed to the nest generation (of offspring resulting from sex with other family members) then what was the point of naming the animals? How about the mammals in the sea or the fish?
🤔🤔interesting thought
This is painful but instructive to listen to. Part of the problem is Eric's apparent confusion of General Revelation and Special Revelation. The Inerrancy council is dealing with Scripture, not general revelation issues. Both General Revelation and Special Revelation are INFALLIBLE because they both are revelations from God. As sinful creatures, our interpretations can be wrong, but the testimony of creation and scripture cannot. Yes, Romans 8 says that the creation was subjected to futility (vs 20) and it is in bondage to corruption (decay/entropy)... but that doesn't mean that the creation deceives us. Why? Because we are told in Psalms that the Heavens declare the glory of God and else where that the creation testifies to the glory of God. And earlier in Romans 1, Paul tells us that the creation testifies to God's invisible attributes such as His eternal power and divine nature such that it leaves man without excuse (vs 20). So HOWEVER one chooses to interpret Romans 8, creation cannot visually or scientifically deceive us because God is not a deceiver - He does not lie and and in fact holds us accountable to the testimony of nature. Finally, Hugh makes a good point... God knowing that man would fall, God subjected the universe to futility and bondage of corruption when He created the universe and yes, "it was good". God didn't say it was "perfect", but that it was good because it would fulfill His purposes for His plan of redemption. That is why God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden... the whole world was not the Garden of Eden. It was a special place that catered to Adam and Eve and where God would fellowship with them - it was a specific geographical spot. Remember that upon sinning, Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden into the world outside the garden - where they would be exposed more than ever to the futility and "bondage of corruption" of nature... my two cents.
I appreciate Hugh Ross.
It takes me 10 minutes to come up with a new password. I would not be able to come up with 3000 unique names for different animals in 4 hours 🤣🤣🤣.
Todd, you just need to change the number at the end of your password!
For example - change from Password1 to Password2 and then keep going up!
@@Bibledingers I feel bad for your children.🤔🤣🤣😂🤣
Adam had the Holy Spirit of God in him. He probably knew exactly what to name the animals and it didn't take him that long.
@@coko3124 Wow that is a stretch. There is no reason to believe that Adam had the Holy Spirit in him. Adam was sinless and there was no need for sanctification. Not only that but God was walking around the garden hanging out with Adam and presenting Adam with animals to BOTH name them and see if any would be a suitable companion for Adam. It might not take long to decide that a hummingbird wouldn't be good company, but dogs, cats, goats, horses, sheep and other such animals might take awhile... Some people prefer thier animals over other people.🤣🤣🤣. Your guess is silly. Why would God want to speed up Adam? Was God in a rush? You are attempting to force your narrative, bad idea, especially after it has been proven to be false.
@@toddgardner6355 The Spirit of God was breathed into Adam. How is that a stretch? If we have the mind of Christ being reborn and with His Spirit then don't you think Adam had intellect and wisdom from God given to him. It's a stretch to say that he was showing him animals for companionship. That is ridiculous. God knew He was going to make a suitable companion for Adam that he could procreate with and have children. God knew this before He made Adam. Where in scripture is that exactly that he was giving him animals for companionship? He was showing him that he had dominion/ownership over the earth. That it literally says in the Bible.