Re: Answersingenesis

From: Jonathan Clarke (
Date: Sat Mar 31 2001 - 17:16:49 EST

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Answersingenesis"

    Ten thousand hits a day? This is appalling if true. You imply some
    scepticism about the numbers. Is this justified?

    To link this comment to Tim's excellent and irenic post I think the real
    reason is that people of group a) and b) have an axe to grind whereas people
    in group c) and d) do not - at least in this area. People with an axe to
    grind will almost always make more of a stink and get a higher profile than
    those who don't.

    Confuscius is supposed to have said "It is better to light a candle than
    curse the darkness". I look forward to you candle lighting attempts.


    John W Burgeson wrote:

    > The other day I noted that the young earth site,, is
    > receiving a reported 10,000 visitors a day.
    > I also note that the ASA web site has had about 80,000 visitors since
    > inception.
    > Assuming the answersingenesis reported number is inflated by a factor of
    > ten, and that the ASA site has been active for 3 years, that reduces to
    > 80 /day for the ASA and 1,000/day for answersingenesis.
    > I could not find a visitor count at, but surely they must be
    > doing a comparable business.
    > I surmise we are being outgunned by a factor of at least 20 to 1. Very
    > likely a lot more.
    > At the occasion of the NTSE conference in Austin, in February 1997, ICR
    > put on a conference at a local Baptist church. There were 125 at the NTSE
    > -- the church was overflowing with a reported (this is from memory) 3,000
    > in attendance.
    > I surmise that although the YEC view has been thoroughly falsified
    > (unless one espouses the Gosse thesis), it is certainly not going away. I
    > had had visions of that happening as the Internet revolution began -- but
    > Gresham's law of $$ seems to apply even more so to rational discourse.
    > We can debate endlessly the amount of the beating we are taking; is it
    > "only" 20 to 1 or is it, perhaps, 100 to 1, but I think nobody here will
    > deny that rational discussions on origins ARE an uninteresting backwater
    > in current origins thinking in our country. We can also argue that this
    > does not matter because the academic / intellectual world is not so
    > polarized. Which may, or may not, be true.
    > Or those of us who care can try to do something about the current sorry
    > situation.
    > I don't have any magic bullets myself, but I have been discussing with
    > Jack Haas at least one fairly modest action we can take (I speak here to
    > ASA members) to work on the situation. That will be the subject of a post
    > I will make later.
    > In the meantime, comments anyone?
    > Burgy (John Burgeson)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 31 2001 - 17:12:12 EST