The AIG scientists are, at least, open in admitting that 1)they start from the premise of Creation 2)their models, as such, are based on their best current research-- and are not cast in stone, and are the work of fallible men.
It's not whether or not their ideas are right, it's that some I have read have had flaws so obvious I read the entire article looking for them to answer that criticism, and a few where their methods seemed rather shady, and that makes me uncomfortable. As I've said somewhere in the post, a couple of the lecturers at my uni were creationists and actually gave lectures with AIG at my school a couple of times, and they said they'd prefer not to be associated with some of it. Thankyou for the links.
Re: Completely agree
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/40
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v
Re: Completely agree