From: Jim Eisele (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 28 2002 - 06:55:52 EDT
>>Jim wrote, in part: "My sense of the current situation is that
>>the tables are about to turn on them."
>Some measure of this might be useful. Anecdotal evidence (such as I posted
>about the Austin conference) is useful to get a feel for things, but what
>measures are available.
>My own web site has has about 4,000 visitors since its inception 18 months
>ago. Glenn Morton's site is now at about 100,000. But check out the
>at AIG and ICR. Those are drops in the bucket to them. Yes -- many YECs may
>have them as home pages, and so the counts may be inflated.
John, I highly respect your contributions to this list. But, you are
looking at this issue completely backwards. AiG knows how to fight!
In that sense, I extremely respect them. They have made up their mind
that the only Bible teaching is that the earth is 6,000 years old. As
a result, they have made a lie out of Gen 2:17, when God tells Adam that
he will die in the day that he eats the apple. The event that began
that death process did occur that day, but the final fruition (pardon
the pun) was about 900 years later. AiG's main problem is a highly
suspect way of looking at the Bible (that is only one example among many -
many which have been discussed on this list). Their Biblical views are
the only explanation that I can see for their extreme fringe "scientific"
BUT, they have thrown down the gauntlet, and are heavily advertising their
position. Now, I don't really care about what kind of information they
(or any other creationist organization) may or not mail to the churches
(at least now that the internet has arrived). And, I can empathize with
you and Glenn. It's not easy to "put yourself out there." The question
is, who are the leaders for the counter-positions? Who are the ones
directly challenging the information that AiG puts on its website? At
this point in time, the ASA is not the primary leader. We have a very
weak internet presence. So, you are correct in the fact that AiG "has
the lead." But the internet is the great equalizer, and proclaimer of
the truth. AiG is isolated. In that sense, I feel sorry for them. BUT,
their arguments cannot be allowed to continue to deceive. The Bible says
that God gives grace to the humble, but opposes the proud. AiG's days are
numbered. Personally, I would rather see them reject their twisted
Biblical views, and become day-agers. Perhaps, over time, they will drift
into fringe irrelevance. BUT, now that they have boldly moved into the
internet, I firmly believe that they need to be (as gently as possible)
confronted with counter internet presence.
>BTW, the more links the better. Google uses the number of cross links to
>"rate" its findings when a search is made.
Yes. Preferably links that directly address "information" posited on
>>And key word searches are all that is needed for people to investigate for
>>themselves. The battle is not yet over, but victory is well within
>I wish I believed that. From my vantage point, it appears just the
I think that AiG is the only creationist organization that needs to be
confronted at this time. Some have already stepped forward. Yahoo is
the internet leader. AiG counter-presence needs to be established under
the keywords "genesis bible." There already is counter-presence under
"genesis flood." I'm open to other strategic keyword suggestions. I could
not find an AiG presence under "evolution" and I'm not inclined to consider
that strategic at the moment.
As I said, victory is well within reach. It is not healthy for Christianity
for Christians to carry the label "stubborn, ignorant, and
There are serious weaknesses (as well as fantastic strengths) in the
world. An unwillingness to reconsider rigid, futile, and backwards Biblical
understanding is, in my opinion, a serious weakness.
I intentionally "dodged" trying to quantify day-agers v young earthers v
TEs. One alternative way of looking at the numbers is to ask who is doing
the most good for Christianity in this area?
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 28 2002 - 15:09:51 EDT