Talk:Answers in Genesis

message: I want to know what gives someone the right to call someone else's scientific observations pseudoscience. Seems very biased to me. You have scientists who work for Answers in Genesis and have published work. Stooge78 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NPOV and specifically WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia is biased but toward science. And Wikipedia has every right to call pseudoscience pseudoscience if that's what it is. Creation science is pseudoscience. This has been discussed extensively and you can see the discussions relating to this at the various articles that have a link to creation science. You may want to read past discussions - and the ones in the archives before commenting further. No creation scientists have had articles (related to creation science) published in reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. Robynthehode (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If something goes against the secular worldview than it is automatically deemed wrong. Evidences for creation are abundant and yet they aren't taught because it goes against evolutionary concepts. I am glad you did say Wikipedia is biased though. They are biased towards their interpretation of the available evidence. Two people can look at the same observation and come to different conclusions. They don't want to admit there could be a creator because that would go against their naturalistic theories. If you were legitimate you would incorporate both sides and let the people decide for themselves but suppression of creation science is mainstream. 73.19.226.165 (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @73.19.226.165 yes, Wikipedia needs to be biased. This article isn't biased. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Stooge78 Yeah, 99 precent of their ideas are based off of actual scientific fact supported by the Bible. Not pseudoscience. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really struggling with the language here. Is "based off of" really proper English? I'm guessing it's supposed to mean what I would write as "based on", but it's pretty gruesome, and it might mean something very different, so can someone confirm? HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry, based off of is dialectal. I am from Idaho. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Slatersteven look at their website. Gallus lafayettii (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could just give one example. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that YEC is at odds with many academic fields. And yup, even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, even if they are right about some facts, they are not right overall. tgeorgescu (talk)  11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Chances are that whatever the example is, talk.origins has refuted it decades ago. Can we please stop this? It is WP:OR anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Shouldn't say "instead supports pseudoscientific creation science," because it is Opinion. It should say "instead supports creation science which has been considered pseudoscience. Then it would be less biased.
WorldQuestioneer (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not opinion.  If there was any evidence that the world was only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old.  Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation.  And yet it's only a select group of Christians and "token" Jews and Muslims, either American or influenced by American evangelical conservatism, who promote these claims.  That doesn't make those claims right, as we're not baptized in the name of Ken Ham, nor was he crucified, buried, and resurrected on our behalf. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary bias 

message: The sourcing in Answers in Genesis#Richard Dawkins interview is not great. We have one from Prospect which doesn't appear to verify anything in the section, we have a chunk of text sourced to Dawkins himself, and then a piece from Australian Skepticsit would help to have some input on whether that source is reliable or not. Are there better sources that verify this content or suggest that it's due? Firefangledfeathers 16:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree -- the sourcing of this section is poor. Additionally, the sourcing of the "Anti-atheism billboards" sub-section also is poor (one of them is a non-RS blog). I don't think these two sections (along with the "Great Homeschool Conventions" section) should be removed, but their size, in comparison to their level of coverage by RSs, suggests they're WP:UNDUE in their current form. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawkins interview