Talk:Answers in Genesis
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jrssr5 (talk | contribs) at 15:25, March 21, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
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.-AmesG 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes we should use it! And of course it is biased - it has a conservative Christian bias! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smile (talk)
- Andy has yet to admit that the site is biased. He's still pretending it's neutral. Until he does otherwise, we should keep the "dream" alive.-AmesG 23:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Nobody has to "admit" anything. This is a conservative Christian wiki project - it is in the name! Smile 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- Bull. Look at the Commandments. It's supposed to be neutral and non-opinionated.-AmesG 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- I'm backing AmesG on this one, AiG is shady and should be avoided as a reference. On their "about us" page they say: "When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account." That's a convienent way of saying, if it doesn't agree with the bible then the evidence is wrong and we're right. Jrssr5 11:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views
Does AIG want removal of evo material from schools or present both views? Is the article correct? There is no citation. Conservative 23:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
- Only Genesis. No evil-ution. They're that nuts.-AmesG 23:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- A citation? Conservative 23:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative