That transcript would have been a lot shorter without all the pot-shots from the AiG peanut gallery.
While I don't agree with either debater about the creation days, on the age-of-the-earth issue I agree with Ross.
This is what I thought was the best point of the debate (my slight changes are in brackets):
Hugh Ross: [W]hen I talk to scientists, you know, what are the things that are most persuasive to them scientifically for proving that [the universe has a Creator]? It was three things: the transcendent cosmic beginning of the universe, an actual beginning of space and time, the anthropic principle. We astronomers look at the universe. We see it as supernaturally designed to allow for the existence of life, and human life in particular, and the origin of life. [...] But the interesting thing about the scientific evidence for a beginning of space and time, the design of the universe, and the origin of life, is that those all depend on the universe and the earth being billions of years old. And a young earth model, you don't have the scientific evidence for the origin of life, the anthropic principle, transcendent cosmic beginning. So you're really having to throw away your most powerful scientific arguments for the existence of the God of the Bible.
In one exchange, I think Ross missed a perfect opening. They were discussing Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 that "But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female' ":
Jason Lisle: I understand what it's referring, and it talks about the beginning ... it doesn't say the beginning of marriage. It says the beginning of creation now and you need to take a look at that.
At this point, Ross should have asked, "How long did creation take?" Lisle would of course respond, "Six 24-hour days." Ross could then reply, "So the beginning of creation would be the first day, not the sixth day? And yet Genesis 1 states that the first humans, male and female, were made on the sixth day. Was Jesus wrong, since this actually happened at the
end of the period you call creation and not at the beginning?"
The point, of course, is that there's many ways to take Mark 10:6
literally. What Lisle wants isn't for everyone to read the verse literally, but to read it the same way he reads it. He rejects other literal interpretations just as quickly as other people reject his interpretation.
