Ken Ham vs Hugh Ross

Here is a very important debate, carried out most politely and thoroughly, between the main proponents of Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism.

I have a number of comments about the views expressed by Ken Hamm, the YEC proponent.

First, Ken says that we cannot make use of astronomy whatsoever, because we are fallen. I would have to say that's a mark against your theological view, especially if you are running a museum which speaks of physical proofs of your creation model.
Secondly, I wonder if it's not possible for a scientist to say something is dis-proven. For example, suppose I have a hypothesis that this cup of coffee always falls UP when I let go. I test the hypothesis by letting go, and it goes DOWN. Is this a TRUTH, even in the eternal, Godly sense, that I have DISproven the hypothesis that things go UP? In science, we can never be sure of what IS, but we very often can disprove that which IS NOT. Science is living with doubt based on what you know is not. I'm just doubtful of Ken's presumption that the fallibility of humans prevents us from learning anything about the past from astronomy.
Thirdly, Ken repeatedly discards any biblical reference that tells about the details of creation that is not in Genesis 1-11. This too I find to be very problematic.  Again, I reason why I think his biblical model is wrong.

Not much else I can type that would add to this piece. Enjoy!