Do we live on a young or an old earth? - Ken Ham vs Jeff Zweerink

Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis debates Jeff Zweerink of Reasons To Believe on Young Earth vs Old Earth Creationism.

[philhardy]

Justin is so incredibly fair to his guests, its nice to see a journalist so genuinely even handed, just facilitating the debate

[GachaKoii]

Today in my bio class I had a good discussion like this with my teacher and all the other students in my class. It ended with everyone against me and thinking I’m going no where. But I may not understand everything that God does but I know I can trust His word.

[ewankerr]

I don't know the answer, but I know that we do live on earth.

[jeffreysytsma]

It's almost like Jeff was afraid to debate or hurt feelings. He never really responded to Ken's questions but presented more blanket generalizations. You're an astro physicist! Present the science man!

[ModernDayDebate]

I'm only about 45 minutes in but this is super interesting already! Getting to see Ken and Jeff cross swords is a real treat, thank you very much to the debaters, Justin and the rest of Unbelievable!

[grahamgman]

I really enjoyed that interaction. I thought Ken did a great job defending the young earth understanding of the bible. If you read the bible and believe it then the young earth position fits what the bible teaches. Thank you Ken Ham.

[HM-vjll]

Glad all the real experts are in the comment section...

[macy]

In watching this debate, it seems to me that Ken brought more questions and legitimate arguments against old earth creationism while Jeff never any presented any arguments against a young earth. So to me Ken won this debate.

[ENCwwe]

I would love to see William Lane Craig debate Ham on the age of the Earth.

[Jshan]

Thank God for folks like Ken Ham. I just don’t understand how Genesis could be interpreted to indicate anything other than 6 literal days of creation, especially pairing each day with evening and morning.

I also just don’t understand how anyone could think that a loving God would look down at his creation suffering and dying and call it good.

The truth is that it WAS very good. And then mankind rejected God and through their sin, death and suffering entered the world. The Bible says creation groans for the return of Christ. It groans, we groan because we know that we were not made to die but to live. In union and submission to our God.

[at]

Justin always does a very good job as a mediator

[milo_thatch_incarnate]

I'm a Gen Z kid, raised in a Christian home, and my parents raised me on Ken Ham. As I've become an adult though, I've obviously questioned what I grew up learning. But I've found that no matter how many debates I listen to against Ken's Biblical creation argument, I have *still* never found someone who has arguments that make more Biblically-sound sense than Ken's.

Just as one example, this issue about the Hebrew word "yom". Jeff's only argument against it, from what I could tell, was that he is not a Hebrew scholar, and therefore he can't know exactly what the Hebrew says, and needs to turn to the people who have been studying it for a long time. But number one, Hebrew is a language you can learn like any other; therefore understanding what a word means shouldn't be any more complicated than learning how to say "day" in French or Swahili. Second, if you do want to only rely on the people who have studied ancient Hebrew for most of their lives... then the *dictionaries* are where you would turn! They were **written** by people who have studied ancient Hebrew for a long time! And according to the dictionaries, like Ken said, yom. means. day. **shrugs**

[BradClaps]

Ken does a good job showing how important Genesis is to take seriously

[hansweichselbaum]

I would love to ask Ken why he accepts an Ice Age in the past. Where does he find that in the Bible? Does he suddenly accept evidence through 'historical' science?

[cewoldt]

This is a very good discussion, with both participants doing well in the time allotted. And the moderator was excellent and fair. And the emphasis on the gospel and the agreement on that being primary was of key importance to both participants. We recently toured the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum, and I was surprised and impressed that the Good News was front and center and primary to the presentation.


I was a young earth creationist growing up. Later, I would say that I was an old earth creationist six days a week, and a young earth creationist on the seventh. Then I started reading old earth creationist literature and that was pivotal to becoming a solid young earth creationist again. The OEC position, particularly the biblical interpretation, seemed very weak to me, for many of the reasons that Ken Ham brings up.


A prior comment said that Ham doesn't acknowledge or ignores the hermeneutics. What did I find? Again, I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I can only assess the arguments of those who are. Yes, there are Bible believing Hebrew scholars with a high view of scripture on both sides of the argument. But I found that the arguments favor--and it seems to be strongly in favor--of a 24 hour, six day creation being what the text is saying (after many many hours of reading opposing viewpoints). Even non believing Hebrew scholars--who don't have a dog in the fight--have stated that the text is clearly saying six 24 hour days, even though they don't believe the account is true history.

John Lennox, an old earth creationist (whom I highly respect) says the days are six 24 hour days, but that they are not consecutive and may be many thousands of years apart. And all the Hebrew scholars I know--well all two--say Genesis 1 is clearly referring to 24 hour days.
I think it is telling that Zweerink says that the long age view of "days" is viable, but never says in this discussion that it is the best interpretation. Maybe that is his modesty because he is not a biblical scholar. I know from reading that Ham would not equivocate (and is he modest? He is also not a Hebrew scholar). Even Dennis Prager, who is Jewish and a Hebrew scholar says that he believes they are 24 hour days because that is what the Torah says, even though he doesn't know how to square that with the (materialistic) science narrative.


My first conclusion from reading extensively on both sides, hundreds of hours, is that OEC really are generally trying to square the scientific consensus of the day with scripture, not coming to the best interpretation of scripture first although they vigorously deny it.


My second conclusion from studying extensively (thousands of hours) is that molecules to man Darwininan evolution is contrary to the evidence. And many evolutionary scientists agree that Darwinism--natural selection working on random mutations and genetic drift, etc., is no longer a reasonable explanation and are looking for other mechanisms.

[jayfoulke]

Ken is very clear, and his no nonsense approach to scriptural authority, and reliability is refreshing a true apologist for the word of God

[marksmith]

Regarding the distance light travels from the stars to us as evidence for the gap theory, the Bible says 17 times, “God stretched out the heavens” which easily explains why we can see starlight from far away and yet the earth was created around 6000 years ago.

[leonardu]

They didn't actually discuss any scientific evidence in this debate. They pretty much only discussed the theological and biblical implications.

[alexkettering]

Ken ham helped me leave young earth creationism. I saw extreme intolerance for how others that thought different than young earthers. From my perspective to some young earthers made how old the earth was an issue salvation. It became the more important that any other aspect or part of the Bible.

[TheWorldsStage]

Ham and Zweerink sounds like names in a Dr. Seuss book