I just watched what I began to look for after seeing Hovind get mashed by Ross. Lisle and Ross.
Lisle came out a lot better, taking on the subject from the biblical exegetic standpoint.
In my view the snakes first line in the bible "Has God then said...?" is a signifier of a wrong mindset. It should take a lot to question Gods word for many reasons. One being that without an absolute standard what is right and wrong is up for discussion, something the snake would like and no follower of God can afford to allow himself onto.
While Lisle is well qualified to discuss the cosmology subject I believe he was right to start from interpretation/understanding of Gods word. One gets into trouble very quick if one approaches the word of God from ones understanding of nature, since a good part of the "understanding" part is delivered by secular sources, some of them incredibly biased, such as Richard dawkins. (Eg if something appears to be created he feels the need to stress the word "appearance" to compensate for the obvious. His use of findings from biology to interpret human behaviour diminishes humans and so on).
Lisle stressed that the simple and straightforward reading of "day"/"yom" is "day" and the simple straightforward reading of a flood that covered "the earth" is possibly a flood that covered the "Earth".His third statement was about there being only one creation narrative, the statement in Job is not a creation narrative and the referred psalm is a poetic treatment of creation. (Don't be scared the word "myth" and "poetic" are only ever used disrespectfully by people who do not understand a lot, never by anyone with reasonable understanding.)
With that he helped map out the diffences and he added that the divide in understandings, while serious, is not a salvation issue. It seems he has identified that Ross has God as Lord and does not question gods word, just our understanding of it.
The actual cosmology discussion is subordinate to the order it approached from. If you come from naturalistic values to the bible you might become a Christian (which is painful as you will understand a bit about the nakedness of man and the figleaves of our current state, which is just as big a truth that those without God, ignore.It, unlike historical creation, is there in there every move we make) or take the easy way out.
Ross reconciles cosmology with creation by relying on 2nd and 3rd interpretations of the words of the text. Lisle does the same job by relying on the 1st interpretation. I respect Lisles stand. However since the subject is not an everyday one (most of us, I trust, are not astronomers and physicists) one would expext that any discussion about the subject where an everyday word was used it would be with a meaning specific to the subject, so that which of a number of meanings, that is within reverent interpretation, might be the right one.
(By reverent I mean that interpretation need to assume God is not lying, wrong or misleading, the word is from God, it is intended for teaching and so on)