Answers in Genesis.
Page updated: Sunday, March 23, 2008
Because AIG is persistent in knocking any YEC (young earth creationist) they disagree with. And through failed attempts to e-mail them about this, I have decided to address the issue of what they do here. And through no fault of my own, they bring this upon themselves. Because as long as they will continue to do this, how long will it be before I get on that list of those that they disagree with? For I already have stuff on my site that goes against their's, so it's only a matter of time. So I address this issue not because I want to, but because of what they do, I more or less have to. So if someone from AIG reads this, it is your own doing this is here. And it will stay here as long as you attack the body of Christ through every ministry you disagree with.
Why do I think AIG has become this way?
Through them becoming one of the biggest ministries in the creation field. They have decided to set themselves above all others. Example: I e-mailed them again about what they say about Kent Hovind. And all I got was more or less lame excuses. I even asked them that when I hit the road with the creation message, will I be on their hit list? They dodged that question without really answering it. And I was told to write a paper for them to peer view about the problem. Peer view? They now put themselves as the elite peer viewers of creation? So what will they do? Peer view whether or not to attack me personally like they did Hovind?
But Hovind is not the only person AIG chooses to pick on, Carl Baugh is on that list as well. Ron Wyatt too. If they have sinned, who will be the judge of that sin? Because AIG thinks it is their duty to do this, it is the reason I have named them the Pope of creation. Because the way they go at it, it's like your not approved to even address the subject unless your touched with their magic wand.
I now also believe that AIG supports a Calvinist view . For they use quotes from John Calvin , to support the creation views of AIG. John Calvin preaches a doctrine of predestination. That everyone's fate is predetermined by God and therefore unchangable. So in other words, Calvin's belief system is based on a fully controlled matrix. Where God takes away choice, and it only seems we are making choices. That there are those who will go to hell and cannot change that, and those who will go to heaven and cannot change that either. In my opinion, the Calvinist view mocks God so openly, I would consider it an occult. And because of that, I would never link to sites promoting the views of this doctrine.
Side note: AIG, if your reading this, and did not like what I just said, how does it feel to have something you built with the sweat of your brow, mocked and criticized? Does it feel good to have your name on the chopping block? Do you feel the strife building? Is what I'm saying here any worse than what you accuse Hovind, Baugh, or Wyatt of doing? If not, you should not have any problem with my view. You say you and Hovind have come to some type of agreement. My question would be: Why is all that stuff still up about Hovind? Better get that log out of your own eye before you judge others.
Some of you might read that and say: My, that sure was harsh words. So let me show you all the reasons I feel this way.
When you give the enemy ammo, they will kill your own people.
Here's a short listing of atheist-evolutionist sites that use AIG's info to debunk, and to destroy a believer's faith:
Side note: Since listing the links below, several of these websites have either changed their webpages. Or deleted them. In my opinion, they are hiding what I have exposed here about them and AIG.
http://www.kent-hovind.com/aig_debunk.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/reference/kent_hovind (This site has removed the webpage, link not broken. This was done because I linked to it)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/kent-hovind
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/31/8219/5938
http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/hovind.htm (I have heard that this site is actually owned by someone from AIG). So why would a creationist site be so against one of it's own? Because it is not a YEC site. It is OEC-theistic evolution site.
Here's a list of Christian websites that also use AIG website for debunking creation information:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/116/11.0.html (Hovind and AIG link here). Notice that one link goes to a ip address, not a website. Also notice several links are broken.
http://www.answersincreation.org/kent_hovind.htm Notice the use of the word fundamentalist (fundamentalist Baptist churches?). And that they also link to Talk Origins, which helps their agenda.
List of Christian forums that use AIG info to debunk YEC info:
http://www.creationtalk.com/message-board-forum/post-11662.html&highlight=
http://www.christianforums.com/t42399
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=1270348&postcount=6
List of atheist forums that use AIG info to their advantage:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2639775&postcount=15 A atheist forum using aig link. Though link is now broken. Notice Talk Origins is used with it.
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=134116 Notice this thread at this forum is direct usage of the AIG do not use YEC list. Also notice what the very first poster says: So why not come out and just admit that evolution is the real deal already?
Side note: As far as forums go, and the debate between creation and evolution. The AIG debunk page is used all the time to discourage any Christian that wants to get into the creation subject. I personally cannot count the times, on my fingers and toes, it has been used to discredit things I wanted to discuss, or debate. Also, the links in this section will grow as I find more. If you know of threads in forums where AIG info was used towards the atheist agenda to discourage a Christian in the creation debate. Just send me the link, and it will get added to the list.
Here's a quote from Aig's site I ran across while doing this search: And while Hovind was probably an unfortunate choice as the representative of YEC (end of quote). The hate for Hovind just wreaks all over the AIG site. Will the Pope of creation ever forgive Hovind? As they sit on their Pope throne administering their Pope judgement, as Hovind is more or less banished as a trust-able person? As Hovind is made to suffer in AIG's form of creation hell for not getting his ideas first approved by the Pope?
Could there be a much deeper bigger problem with AIG?
When I first e-mailed AIG about all this stuff on their website, I got into an e-mail debate. And through this e-mail debate, I thought I was talking to one person. What I found was that I was being tagged teamed by several creationists on their staff (a usual atheist tactic ). I also noticed that their responses had OEC (Old Earth Creation) overtones from people who claim to be YEC. So I asked point blank, after I received the comment about getting the lies out of YEC, are you really OEC? They would not answer my question, and I asked it twice in two separate e-mails because I wanted to make sure they read my question. No answer.
Side note: Because some have expressed their dissapointment with the accusations of AIG being secretly OEC (Old Earth Creation). I want to stress that this is my opinion due to how they handled my e-mails, and would not answer the question about being OEC when I asked it point blank. I have removed this comment and I have also removed the comment about them being a mole to the creation cause because of the complaints I have recieved on this as well.
Why would a YEC organization work in a way to destroy YEC evidence from ever being used?
To also destroy the most dangerous evidence YEC has against evolution and OEC. How bent are they in making sure this evidence is not used? They actually have a webpage dedicated to just that. It's called: Arguments creationist should not use. Some on that list any fool would know (another common atheist tactic, list what is obvious along with what is questionable to discredit it all as a group). But others have been a thorn in the evolution and OEC side for a long time. And suddenly AIG deems them debunked? How debunked are these evidences? I'll use the moon dust theory as an example: http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flashmoon/index.html There are several red flags that go up while you read what's on that page. Like everytime they tried to discredit it through a test, the results were never close to one another, and from those results, there can be no scientific conclusion. But AIG says there is.
Side note: Aig has moved the webpage about Kent Hovind to their sister site. So if you want to read what is said about Hovind, you can read it here: Arguments crestionist should not use.
In fact, that section of their website has received so many complaints, they reworded the name to say: Arguments "we think" creationists should not use. Now why do you think they had to do that? If you want to see actual proof of them adding the words "we think" right in their site. On that same page where they list all those arguments, look over to the right at their resources. The dvd they show there has the original name without the words "we think" added (I am sure they will change this after I pointed it out, so we will have to wait and see). There was some people putting up pretty good arguments against their claimed debunked evidence. But because AIG is not into admitting being wrong, they just changed the title of that page so they can always say: "we only think that", for you can use it if you want. Yeah right. After a evolutionist lists that AIG says it's debunked, what are you going to debate? Even evolutionists have learned the power of AIG's debunking method. Yep, just look it up on the AIG site. If they say it's debunked, or even imply it, the creationists don't even stand a chance.
Side note: So, how many believers have you discourage with all that you do that helps the enemy, AIG? I have already had to minister to more than one who were so frustrated, they were ready to give up the whole faith because they could not even make a point, unless it was approved by your site on any forum. Is that what your really after AIG? To destroy the "new in Christ" who is weak in the faith? I consider what you do, and the results of it worse than anything Hovind ever did. And on the next few pages, I will list examples from websites and forums how your tactics are used to destroy the faith of every Christian who gets caught up in the strife between you, and all the other creationists you choose to pick on.
Does AIG even care?
I'm not the only one who has complained about how they handle other creationists. And we have all pretty much got the same response. One that says: We are the Popes of creation. We will judge those who we see fit to judge. If they do not adhere to our ideas and rules about creation evidence, and how every creationist should conduct themselves in our eyes. They will be banished to a creation hell where we deal out what type of torment they will receive at our hands. And just when you think we are through, we will take all that you do on a daily bases, and judge that too. Why? We are the creationist Popes. We know all truth, and those who do not agree, are mocking our position. And we will deal with them as heretics to the cause.
So who's next on their hit list? Me? We'll have to wait and see. I can almost bet they will have a rebuttal up in less than a week. But hey, it's what they do and they are experts at it.
Is AIG helping OEC because they will not admit to being wrong?
On the page where they list the "arguments that creationist should not use". I want you to notice that not one is a OEC argument. All are YEC arguments. So from what I can gather from this, it is ok to use what ever OEC argument you like, just don't use these YEC arguments listed. OEC are creationist too, correct?... Compared to how they attack a YEC they disagree with, I want to read the very nice well done, polite debunk of Hugh Ross: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0821ross.asp Ross is supposed to be the opposite of almost everything they believe. But yet their debunk of his beliefs is done very professional like. As if they do not want to offend Ross. Well they offended Hovind. So they pick to be on better speaking terms with Ross (OEC), but on worse speaking terms with Hovind (YEC)?
So when the treatment for YEC believers is much worse than OEC-evolutionists, on a YEC site. What does that point to? It points to where their loyalties actually lie. To think nothing of bashing YEC, but to be professional about debunking a progressionist OEC shows how the inner thoughts of AIG really work. Even though it is covered up, and I have already shown where things were changed to that effect. I have not really studied all that is written on the AIG site, but just from looking at the little that I have, and deciphering what you already see. I have to wonder what more would I find if I took the time to go through that whole site. Would I find a pattern of YEC bashing, and OEC polite debunking?
Anyone who knows anything about how the human mind works. Also knows that the way you use words can effect the way someone thinks about someone else. The non-polite bashing of YEC's and their evidence reaffirms what most atheist, evolutionists, OEC's and agnostics already think about YEC. The nice debunks of people who believe OEC, evolution. etc... Do not make people think as badly about them. So what is really the point of this YEC bashing going on at AIG? If you leave the AIG site pondering the OEC information because of the polite way it is debunked. And not even wanting to address the issues or evidence of YEC because of the harshness of how it was debunked, what will your mind soon end up considering?
Talk Origins using AIG information?
Every where you look on Talk Origins website. You can find several pages where Talk Origins uses info from AIG to further their cause. As of recently, AIG has taken down one of it's pages on Kent Hovind, or moved them. So the link that goes from Talk Origins to AIG no longer works. Here's the link to Talk Origins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/ Click on the link from that page to AIG, and you'll see AIG has removed it. I guess maybe the complaints that many have filed, are starting to have an effect. Problem is, how do you undo the damage? I can tell you how, but AIG won't do it. To post a formal apology to Hovind on their site. After all the hate they have spewed at Hovind, yeah I could actually see that happening.
Side note: Since exposing this, some people have scrambled to cover themselves on this issue. Talk origins has corrected the broken link, but I want you to read what they put in the place of it.
|
The reason I list the page here is because it's a usual atheistic tactic to change things to look more to the advantage of those who disagree. Or those who have been exposed. It's a feeling and need to save face. And by the way this is worded, can you tell they have already read this section of my website? That page was put up for all of you who just happened to click on that Talk Origins link above, and go to their site. You see, a YEC can never be right on anything, according to atheist, evolutionist and OEC, so the other side always changes what is said to make it always seem like we lie. Just like the pics I show that are modified in the next few pages. And like they are the truth tellers of it all. Talk Origins is using different websites to address the issues here because they want to be as inadvertently involved as possible.
Here's the link to the page that AIG used to have on Hovind: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp Link is now broken. So there are many atheist-evolutionists sites, plus OEC sites, that have broken links going to the AIG site about Hovind.
Talk origins, in trying to do damage control. Has reported on one of their bloggers why AIG has removed the Kent Hovind bash page. What does it really matter? Unless there is really a connection. They claim that the recent separations of sorts, at AIG, was the reason for this page removal. The link they leave really does not prove this. Nor do I really see a connection between this and Hovind. So what is this really about? Well, read the link that is supposed to explain this and decide for yourself: http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/03/answers-in-genesis-schism-us-group.html All I see is their agenda being promoted, and an attempt to save face. Note: I have made a copy of what is written on this page. Let's see if they will change it. |
