SBG, you seem concerned over my "casting stones" by indicating that AiG is wrong to support this type of book or theory.
Here is what they say about Ron Wyatt, a fellow Christian who has made some claims about finding the ark, etc:
One of us personally rang the laboratory which he was citing to sustain some of his major Ark claims, and also we obtained this lab data ourselves. It is nothing short of outrageous to consider the way in which this lab data was deliberately misrepresented to fleece the gullible.
It would have done nothing to counter the blow upon blow dealt by this article (justly) to Wyatts own credibility as the claims were shown to be mostly bogus (in the words of his former co-fieldworker, respected creationist geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner).
The issue is not doctrines, it is the factual nature (versus the fraudulent nature) of the evidence.
If one discovers, as we did (and NB at the time of starting the investigation, we did not know of most of his other claims, and investigated his Ark claim with hopeful enthusiasm) that there is a trail of repeated falsehood after falsehood, public lie upon public lie, the hypothesis of a godly, spiritual, latter-day prophet is easily discredited. We have shared this information with Kent Hovind years ago, incidentally. To no avail.
So, basically calling Wyatt a fraud and a liar, as well as one using bogus evidence and DELIBERATELY misrepresenting data to fleece the gullible. I think I was being fairly gentle by comparison. Now, here is what they say about Hovind himself in connection with his taking offense at some of their Arguments Creationists should not use.
We have urged Kent Hovind previously to move away from Wyatt promotion in any shape or form, for the sake of the creation movement, but felt that he did not even begin to understand the basic geological/physical issues, and, worse still, seemed uninterested in anything which might change his mind.
We also have difficulty with the idea of promoting sites which have various overtly bizarre ideas, not just in creation issues, but also linking creation issues with other fringe thinking . . .
[and that is exactly what they are doing here, associating demons with flying saucers, regardless of whether this is what the book actually says, they irresponsibly allow that very natural impression]
In one sense, individuals have the right to use any arguments they choose; but at the same time, particularly if there is talk of creationist cooperation, there needs to be an obligation by all to the greater Christian community to ensure that rigorous testing procedures are applied to the arguments. One of the reasons (there are others) why there is such difficulty getting creation accepted in some intellectual Christian circles is that so many weak (and worse, quite non-credible) arguments are circulating which they equate with all creationist thinking.
Its also important to note that AiG in Hovinds response does NOT necessarily mean what AiG actually says, but Hovinds attempt to summarize what we say. Sadly, this is sometimes far from accurate.
We were pointing out arguments that should NOT be used by creationists in discussions with evolutionists. So even if Hovind were right that the verdict is not in, surely this by itself is enough reason not to use it as if it were a refutation of evolution.
This is a subtle (presumably inadvertent) misrepresentation by abbreviation of AiGs position.
[do you sense the sarcasm there?]
Once again, even granting that he were right, why should anyone think its effective to use an argument merely because it hadnt been disproven?
[which is what Hovind does, so what are they saying about Hovind? Of course, the question could be applied to their own position as well]
This seems an odd way of putting what we say; at any rate it neither engages with nor clearly represents, either our comments or our reasons for making them.
This again fudges the issue by failing to point out . . .
The repeated use of this approach (defending against something that was not stated, is beside the point, and equivocates on definitions) is hopefully not deliberate.
[again, using sarcasm to avoid having to call Hovind a liar straight out].
For Hovind to blame some masquerading computer programmer is, frankly, a bizarre caricature.
The reason for including it in our list is also because it can be a stumbling block to a seeker who has read Darwins book, who would be readily led to the conclusion that creationists must be deliberate distorters of truth.
[of course, they dont seem to worried about the other stumbling blocks they are setting up, but at least they understand the need to avoid such stumbling-blocks and are willing to call Hovind on it when they see it]
To say that the jury is out gives credibility to a position which does as much harm to creation apologetics as would a creationist who taught that the Earth was flat.
Its very sloppy for Hovind to completely misrepresent us.
This grossly misrepresents the situation.
That would be real working together, not some artificial unity in which scientifically trained creationists (i.e. Bible-believing scientists) are supposed to smile sweetly while plainly wrong and even fraudulent claims are being promoted in the name of Creationism.
Oh, and I was pleased to see that AiG agrees with what TEs say about God not being a deceiver:
There is something God cant dolie or deceive. Unfortunately, many people dont see the logic of why the fully grown light on its way argument falls down badly . . . If the light on its way idea is true, God created misleading information part way along a beam of light, recording events that never happened.
So, while they recognize the validity of this argument, they fail to see that it applies to almost every age of the earth argument they use.