Attacks Hugh Ross's depiction of James Ussher through cartoons in a childrens book. Rick Bundschuh- the books cartoonist explains the depiction in detail, excerpt below.

"Please note that I am entirely responsible for the satrical [sic] look and feel of that comic. (FYI Reasons To Believe actually asked me to pull back a bit on some of my satire, which I did) I intentionally wanted to have the art be silly, goofy and lampooning. As you may note, I didn’t spare Hugh from the same treatment either."

Announces their new book by Jonathan Sarfati Refuting Compromise. Attacks Hugh Ross by first saying

"Enter the seductive but very dangerous compromise position called ‘progressive creation.’ Many church leaders worldwide quickly adopted this belief, as taught by its leading proponent, Dr Hugh Ross from Reasons To Believe."

and just a little farther down saying this

"I maintain that progressive creation has greatly contributed to the decline of Christianity in America"

Attacks nameless Christians "in the church" and Dr. Ross specificaly by name - collectively referring to him (and them) as the "'enemy' within". Says they "claim to be biblical" -- insinuating they are not. Says "Paul gave us a warning in Acts 20" about such people. Also calls RTB's ministry "deadly compromise teachings" Repeatedly attaches the word evolution to Dr. Ross. Attributes Hugh's sucess to NavPress and Focus on the Family -- Presumably in an attempt to admonish these organizations. Brings up and criticizes Charisma for publishing it's piece on Dr. Ross -- there is even a link here to another complete seperate negative article just for them - Shame on Charisma dated 29 may 2003 (see below). There is also an appeal for money at the bottom of this negative article... excerpt:

"Your gift during the summer—a time when most ministries see a large drop in giving—will help proclaim biblical truths, including the precious gospel message. Please continue to stand with us, in this fierce battle, with your practical support and prayers."

Attacks Charisma Magazine for running a positive piece on Hugh Ross - calling it's article "shocking". Also takes a shot on many other Christian organizations that endorse Dr. Ross -- excerpt:

"But thumbs down to Pat Robertson (Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia) and Jack Hayford (The King’s Seminary, Van Nuys, California) who are listed as strong supporters of Ross’s compromise."

Uses the word "Rossite". Says "his uncritical acceptance of long ages logically leads to a racist conclusion". Makes reference to the "Doubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross" article (listed below).

Attacks Dr. Ross attempting to tie him to evolution - labeling him with "astronomical evolution", "geological evolution", etc. Again complains of Hugh being published by NavPress and appearing on fucus on the family. Specifically says he

"ultimately undermines the authority of the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

Calls old earth creationists "compromisers". Big deal made of Campus Crusade for Christ's article by Dr. Ross. Speaks how an AIG staffer tried for years to get them to withdrawl their article. The article tself is on-line at http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9403/date.html. Members are incouraged to e-mail and challange pastors and other Christians leaders regarding the issues brought up in the article.

Accuses Ross of "nonsense". contains this quote:

"although Hovind should have said that it is an almost universal cultic practice effectively to deny the key Reformation and Biblical doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, so requiring a cult leader to tell the followers what it means. Reasons to Believe doesn’t have other cultic characteristics like a definite organisational structure for its followers, adding works to salvation (e.g. baptism, speaking in tongues), denial of the Trinity and Christ as fully God and fully man (although William Lane Craig, a self-confessed Ross supporter"

Self CONFESSED Ross supporter??? Is this like admitting to a crime? Says "Once again Ross is blind to the blatantly tautological reasoning here." Says "Ross doesn’t understand the science involved" -- referring to him quoting one of his papers -- this led to the whole trig measurement issue. Makes the following statement:

"Ross clearly doesn’t understand physical chemistry (my speciality field) any more than he understands most of the other subjects on which he pontificates."

Says: "Ross’s minion Dr Fuz Rana," Claims Ross "is just dishonest".

Attacks Dr. Ross and a "Hugh Ross supporter". Says "And because Dr Ross made such fallacious and Bible-undermining arguments in public, our response must also be public." Claims they are "rebuked false teachers". Basically denies that the supporter (or Hugh) are "Christian" creationists. Incidentally in the process Danny Faulkner basically admits Dr. Ross is right by conceeding that what was stated "that they are trig calculations" is correct!

*** Later more recent developments ********

More recently, Danny Faulkner revisited this on the RTB discussion group (an anti-RTB e-group). In attacking Dr. Ross' personal testiminy he mentions the distance measurement issue. See a response in msg # 127:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/127

See his response in msg # 129 (where he makes his own gaffe): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/129

See him get called on it in msg 131: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/131

See his embarrasment in msg 132: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/132

Attacks Dr. Ross. Claims they "some major false statements about testable issues, not differences of opinion". Says :"Unfortunately, however, we have over the years observed instances of Christians, including prominent leaders who influence others, being misled by Ross." Mentions their radio show where they discuss Dr. Ross (see at: www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/play.aspx?mediaID=001109_live). Accuses Dr. Ross of "using smooth-sounding authoritative bluster". Says "he has many times said things that are doubtful or just plain wrong." Accused Dr. Ross of "bore false witness" and "violation of the 9th Commandment." Said: "Ross doesn’t understand the science of the paper anyway" -- regarding simple trig parallax type distance measurements. Attributes "Behemoth bungling" to Dr. Ross.

Attacks Dr. Ross. Mentions Van Bebber and Taylor's book (Which has the same title as a Dr. Ross book)! Accuses Dr. Ross of poor scholarship. Also makes this statement: "From this one can only conclude that either Ross is dishonest or that he is a careless and incompetent researcher." Accuses D. Ross of holding to "a fundamental misunderstanding of the big bang model". Acusses Dr. Ross of "Misunderstanding general relativity". Calls into question his competence. States he cannot "figure things out" regarding MACHOs. Accuses Dr. Ross for overstating the fine tuning of the universe -- these figures are continually climing! Accuses Dr. Ross of "Earth-moon lunacy". Accuses him of "book blunders". He even attacks his testimony! Here is Danny's conclusion:

"Dishonesty or incompetence? It is difficult to say. While I cannot decide which explanation best characterizes Ross, I am very concerned with his inability to correctly handle factual information. On many occasions Ross has greatly bungled information. On other occasions he has appeared to have a total disregard for the truth. Some have found that when Ross is informed of his gaffes, he blithely goes on as if he never heard the criticism. There seems to be no accountability. Ross frequently overstates his arguments. There are very serious problems with his biblical studies and questions about his scientific competence. I hope that the issues raised here will cause those who entertain Ross’s teachings to re-examine his pronouncements. Contrary to what many believe, Ross’s case is riddled with errors. Those who agree with his approach to Genesis should be embarrassed with the extent of his sloppy work."

*** Later more recent devel pements ****
See responses to ALL the charges discusseed in the anti RTB, RTB discussion group! Danny Faulkner (the articles author) and another member openly discuss the issues. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RTB_Discussion_Group/message/137

Attacks Dr. Ross. Accuses him of being ignorant of Hebrew. Attributes him with "delusions of grandeur", logical errors, "Floundering on the Flood", "regurgitates the sceptical nonsense", "Ross’s lack of knowledge of genetics",using "daft explanations", misrepresenting creationists, "parroting" discredited athiestic arguments, associates Dr. Ross with bibliosceptics,"Biological incompetence", "garbilling" explanations, circular reasoning, etc. His conclusion:

"I haven’t covered all of Ross’s errors in this review. This would require a whole book, which is planned. But there is enough documentation here of his biblical and scientific errors to show that Christians should not promote his books."

Partial quote:

"We have come across a comic book, Destination: Creation (A Scientist Looks Back at How the Universe Began), aimed at Christian young people, written by Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. Unfortunately, millions of Christian families are potentially exposed to these dangerous teachings (the booklet is promoted by Dr. Ross's newsletter and web site, both of which have been endorsed by Focus on the Family and other equally respected ministries)."

Says "it appears that Hugh Ross has committed a number of ‘Rossisms’, which I define as ‘confident overstatements which are clearly false’." Directly accuses Dr. Ross of "a direct, conscious lie."

Attacks Dr. Ross. Uses the term ‘Rossist’. Uses the term "progressive creation/Rossism..." Contains this blurp which effectively is a slam on Nav Press/the Navigators: "Publisher: Dr. Ross’s books are published by NAVPRESS, the publishing arm of the Navigators. They stated in a press release: ‘We consider it our privilege and our calling to stand behind Hugh Ross with our support as his publisher.’" Then makes a plug for Creation and Time—A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross.

Attacks John Holzmann and his home school ministry Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd. They quote a section from his paper...

"There ought to be a few people in the homeschooling marketplace who are willing to stand up and say that Old-Earth creationism (OECism) is not the same as atheism, heresy, or, as the people at Answers in Genesis suggest, a reliance upon the wisdom of man in opposition to the perfect Word of God."

Note that they don't 'correct' him about charges of them equating OEC to atheism or heresy -- we are left to conclude they stand by this. Further they do condem listening to the conclusions of fallible men but then turn around and tout one of their own thus "Dr Jonathan, Sarfati a brilliant scientist at AiG-Australia"

Attacks John Ankerberg (of The John Ankerberg Show) and Hugh Ross. Excerpt:

"Sadly, his letter and TV programs promote many of the claims of Hugh Ross and other ‘progressive creationists’—false, anti-biblical beliefs."

It even presents an attack as an appeal for donations:

"AiG has laid it on the line as to what we believe, and that we consider positions like that of Ankerberg (and Hugh Ross) as terribly destructive to biblical authority.

I trust this will burden you to pray even more for AiG. And to support it financially."

Attacks Gorman Gray (author of The Age of the Universe: What Are the Biblical Limits? ) Final statement quote:

"All compromise, including the ‘soft gap’ idea, ends up with a mess. Let’s just believe what God has plainly told us in His Word."

And this is a fellow Christian creationist that believes in 6 literal days, no death (even animal) before the fall, and even a global flood. This proves that in order not to be attacked by AIG on creation - you have to believe EXACTLY as they do.

Attacks John Holzmann and his home school ministry Sonlight Curriculum, Ltd. Attributes him with "apostasy", promoting "heretical" materials, etc. Note: Be sure to follow on to John's reply.

Attacks Pat Robertson because he criticized Michael Farris's (founder and president of Patrick Henry College in Virginia) demand that all teachers sign on to a 6/24 creation week. It cost the school a failed bid for accreditation.

Attacks Christianity Today saying: "since the departure of the well-known Bible-defender Harold Lindsell as editor in 1978, CT has continually featured articles and commentaries that compromise the authority of the Bible from its very first verse."

Attacks Radio Bible Class and President Martin De Haan. Regarding their publication entitled "Dinosaurs and the Bible". Also mentions Dr. Ross (apparently as a guilt by association tactic).

Attacks Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship/Breakpoint ministry. AIG oddly says "We do not believe that a public forum like a Web site is the place to continue this discussion" insinuating that it's not proper for Christians to air their disputes over the internet... It's inconsistient to state this given the fact that this does not keep AIG from attacking Hugh Ross (and others) via their web site and all their other media (publications, books etc)!

See a much more detailed chronology of this issue (from both sides) here: http://www.oocities.org/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/point.html

Attacks numerous respected Christian leaders including Dr. James Dobson (of Focus On The Family), James Montgomery Boice (Pastor and biblical commentator), R.C. Sproul (of Ligonier Ministries), Gleason L. Archer (Old Testament scholar), and others - accusing them of "spiritual fornication"!

Dr. Dobson is example number 7 in their fornicator list - let's look at his listing as an example... What was his crime to draw out this outlandish criticism? Through his Senior Correspondence Assistant (Carolyn Bush) he sent a letter (October 28, 1994) to AIG (answering their questions on his beliefs regarding creation) containing the following:

His private opinion as a layman with no training in the physical sciences, leans in the direction of a moment of creation that may have involved a “big bang” type of episode … . Whether that event occurred 6000 years ago or 4 billion years ago, or within a span of six literal, twenty four hour days, he doesn’t know, nor is he comfortable with those who claim without qualification that they do know.

Attacks Wheaton College and Keith Miller there. Curiously gives costs for attending -- An effort to further take shots at them?