Talk:No Answers in Genesis

Re: "Stear's response to critical article (note the persistent name-calling and false accusations)"

Name calling such as: as well as comparisons with Nazis and references to euthanasia advocates and paedophiles.
 * "scurrilous little site"
 * "a rabidly anti-Christian bigot?"
 * "out of his depth"
 * "they clearly think the end (combatting creationism) justifies the means (deception, lies and slander)"
 * "pontificates about science"
 * "Fanatical"
 * "amazingly crass"
 * "flyweight"
 * "A mailman, not a scientist (and it shows), who has far too much time on his hands."
 * "they don’t actually consider [an accusation of pederasty] an insult"
 * "hardly ever misses the chance to write some inflammatory ridicule"

But wait - those were all written by Safarti, not by Stear.

Roy 14:58, 8 May 2006 (GMT)

(&mdash;list reformatted by Philip J. Rayment according to what seems to be Roy's intentions.)


 * I take it from that that you are offering these as examples of name calling only, not "false accusations"?
 * If they are accurate (and I know Jonathan to be blunt but also to be careful about being accurate), then they are hardly "name calling" in the same league as some of John Stear's comments:
 * Indicating that AiG's scientists are dishonest and unreputable
 * Indicating that some AiG's scientists' qualifications are bogus
 * That Pat Robertson raves poisonously
 * Jonathan was using accurate descriptive comments. Stear's comments are not accurate descriptive comments, so amount to name-calling.
 * Philip J. Rayment 04:08, 9 May 2006 (GMT)
 * Philip J. Rayment 04:08, 9 May 2006 (GMT)


 * So Stear says Safarti & co are not reputable or honest; Safarti says Stear & co engage in deception, lies and slander. Yet somehow the former is name-calling, while the latter is an accurate descriptive comment. Roy 12:53, 13 May 2006 (GMT)


 * I notice that you have made no comment on whether either one's comments are accurate. If Sarfati's comments are accurate and Stear's are not, does that not make a relevant difference between the two?  Or is truth irrelevant?  Philip J. Rayment 13:28, 13 May 2006 (GMT)


 * Roy, there is NOTHING accurate in Stear's "descriptive comment". How is it accurate to say that AiG's scientists are dishonest and unreputable? Does this guy give any examples? Not that I've seen. He's just another raving hatemonger. Scorpionman 10:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

The propaganda by "No" Answers in Genesis is rather amazing. No matter what, they give the impression that there is no alternative and there never will be since they claim it's basically absolute fact. The question is if No Answers is even willing to submit to another theory. Both had criticisms of each other so it's not relevant. The mockery of the Bible is very clear in NaiG.


 * Anyone interested in a series of rebuttals to NAiG assertions? I've added a link Scorpionman 10:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Name calling and personal attacks
Is this appropriate for the wiki? I probably should have asked before I put it up. Also I was wondering if a anti-creationist debate tactic page might be in order. Where we can list the different debate tactics we have all encountered. And also list possible ways to address them.&#91;http&#58;//creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 04:10, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Ready for Rebuttal Effort.
I think it is time that several of us tackelled the issue of rebuttals. Seeing as we all seem to agree that No Answers in Genesis is what we say it is, but have to substantial information to supply as to why other than safaratis quotes.

I think it would be better done in a group effort, as to achieve the most conscensous in the rebuttals. Perhaps to place a rebuttals page and then link the links here under rebuttals or whatever.--Tylerdemerchant 18:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I'll put it on my to do list. We should start off with something simple and over kill it. We can't leave ANY room for error. I think we should stay clear of the Henke articles.

I'll go there and start reading all their articles.--Nlawrence 19:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Maybe one of these articles

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/wieland_information_pp.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/AiG_rodent_resurrected.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_monarch_milkweed.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_mt_everest_and_cricket.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_grand_canyon.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/sarfati_caught_out_again.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_sarfati's_global_flood.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/yet_another_unpublished_letter_to_aig.htm

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_sarfati_sue_3.htm

pick one and I will review it as well and add my imput. I will also pick one and let you know.--Tylerdemerchant 22:30, 28 October 2007 (EDT)


 * If and when this rebuttal gets started I will write a response to the "No Answers in Genesis" article entitled, Dr Carl Wieland is on the Wrong Train if nobody else wants to. --Tony Sommer 23:27, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I am going to start a couple actually. I agree. Lets overkill these issues completely. I am going to start a few and then add the links to the page--Tylerdemerchant 01:09, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Remember that NAiG LIKES to reply to people, so we have to get the articles right on the FIRST TRY.--Nlawrence 06:44, 29 October 2007 (EDT)


 * You might like this article, it is probably a fairly easy article to pick apart, both on content and context of argument. Reading this article actualy gave me a little faith boost. [Regurgatation Lunch Special]--Tylerdemerchant 15:38, 30 October 2007 (EDT)