Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + Line 86:
Line 88: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
I copied material that I originally added to Wikipedia (specifically AiG's position on salvation). The material no longer remains there, though.
{{copied from}}
== How AiG is supposedly not scientific ==
== How AiG is supposedly not scientific ==
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::The following skips a few details, but is the gist of it. AiG started in Australia as the Creation Science Foundation. It subsequently opened an office (although it was technically an independent organisation) in New Zealand, then America. The American "branch" was started by Ken Ham, an Australian who was one of the founders of CSF. However, the American one couldn't use the same name ("Foundation" legally could only be used for something else in the U.S.), so chose the name Answers in Genesis. Subsequently CSF in Australia and New Zealand changed to the AiG name also. Other branches/offices were opened in the U.K., Canada, and South Africa, all using the same name. Last year AiG US (who operated the web-site that all countries used) decided to go it alone, and formally separated from the other organisations (except for the U.K.). So the remaining countries changed their name to Creation Ministries International, and started their own web-site (duplicating much of the AiG web-site, as most of the content had originated in Australia anyway; this explains why you will very often find the same articles on both). So apart from AiG U.K., and the founder being Australian, AiG is for all intents and purposes an American organisation.
::The following skips a few details, but is the gist of it. AiG started in Australia as the Creation Science Foundation. It subsequently opened an office (although it was technically an independent organisation) in New Zealand, then America. The American "branch" was started by Ken Ham, an Australian who was one of the founders of CSF. However, the American one couldn't use the same name ("Foundation" legally could only be used for something else in the U.S.), so chose the name Answers in Genesis. Subsequently CSF in Australia and New Zealand changed to the AiG name also. Other branches/offices were opened in the U.K., Canada, and South Africa, all using the same name. Last year AiG US (who operated the web-site that all countries used) decided to go it alone, and formally separated from the other organisations (except for the U.K.). So the remaining countries changed their name to Creation Ministries International, and started their own web-site (duplicating much of the AiG web-site, as most of the content had originated in Australia anyway; this explains why you will very often find the same articles on both). So apart from AiG U.K., and the founder being Australian, AiG is for all intents and purposes an American organisation.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
== Category ==
I was wondering why the category of [[:Category:Christianity|Christianity]] was removed from this article. If [[:Category:Creationism|Creationism]] was a sub-category of Christianity, I would understand, but it isn't (and shouldn't be). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:Hi Philip, In looking at Christianity, it's mostly Christian principles or events that had a profound impact on its history or deal with theology. I had AIG mirror ICR. If we want the Christian label, I'd recommend Category:Christian organizations, and probably put the same in ICR. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:59, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, that's good reasoning. And Christian Organisations sounds like a good idea to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:32, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks, didn't mean to cause any difficulties. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:34, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::Difficulties? What difficulties? This was just a good, proper, conversation about the article. No difficulties at all. Keep up the good work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
As far as consistency goes, have a look at [[Creation Ministries International]]. I've just added Christian Organization to that, but there is a consistency issue there. I'm sure you can sort it out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
== Dispute with Creation Ministries International, financial origins of ==
The article says that...
'''1.''' AiG US withdrew from the group of sister AiG organizations, that they all had been sharing the one web-site run by the American ministry, and that this effectively forced the remaining organizations in Australia (the parent organization), New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa to rebrand, as Creation Ministries International (CMI). <br>
'''2.''' AiG US stopped distributing Creation magazine and the peer-reviewed Journal of Creation (both published by the Australian ministries), switching subscribers to the new Answers magazine published by the American ministry.<br>
'''3.''' CMI claims that this was unethical, unlawful, and '''harmed their ministry'''.<br>
'''4.''' On its website, AiG US does not discuss the lawsuit between itself and CMI, but does state that the parting was due to how to best present their common YEC message. <br>
From what I recall, the definition of the (sacred) ministry being harmed includes the merchandizing of publications. For that matter, what is Ken Ham's own answer to the question of what justifies the merchandizing of (sacred) ministry? Does he think the Apostles saw to the distribution of copies of their own letters by way of selling the copies like a man sells vegetables at a farmers market? And, if the demand for copies of those letters had been as high as the demand for the publications of AiG, does Ken Ham think the Apostles would have been justified---in the opinion of Jesus himself---to sell them like common produce as the means of meeting that demand? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
...Any thoughts, anyone? [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Nevertheless, although the dispute wound up including financial issues its origin was an attempt to dilute personal power in the interests of Godly ministry. That is in my reading at least (my reading has been fairly extensive). [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:33, 23 August 2011 (EDT)