Talk:No Answers in Genesis

message: *Disciplines not related to evolution:
**Adrian Bates - Law
**Richard Fangrad - Electronics
**Dr. Monty White - Chemistry
**Dr. Carl Wieland - Medicine
**Dr. Jonathan Sarfati - Physical Chemistry and Spectroscopy
*Disciplines somehow related to evolution but could easily get their titles without understanding evolution:
**Ken Ham - Applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology)
**Dr. Johan Kruger - animal reproductive physiology
**Dr. Don Batten - Plant physiology
"Most of AiG's articles are by scientists with Ph.D.s (though some of these are in disciplines not related to the subject of evolution)" would be extremely misleading. So I changed it. --Hob Gadling 17:51, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*I understand but I would sugest Chemistry has relation to Evolution(at least by Aig's definition), and you can't discredit Dr. Johan o rDr. Don Batten just because it is "possible" that they could of learned about evolution elsewhere. Why not just add that their views are not held by mainstream scientists. Falphin 02:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: POV that PhDs are not related to evolution. It is a fact that some AiG scientists have PhDs in geology and biology
If that is a fact, then can you please name the geologists? Some people... I'll remove the geology insertion until then. --Hob Gadling 10:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I thought the evolutionist position was that ALL science is dependant on an evolutionary understanding to even function.  To claim that elsewhere and then make any claim that a creationist's field of discipline is not related to evolution or does not require an understanding of evolution is intellectually dishonest (or just plain foolish - to be blunt).LowKey (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AiG folks

message: This section has some major problems.  First of all, the first sentence:
The site is quoted by such websites as the talk.origins archive as well as by broadcasting organisations such as BBC News,[1] the Geological Society of America[2] and the Australian Skeptics.
Not only are citations needed for the bits about talk.origins and Australian Skeptics, but to say that the BBC News and the GSA have quoted NAiG based upon the references is completely false. To even say that NAiG is cited on the BBC page is tenuous at best as the page simply links to the NAiG website. Are bare links really considered citations?
Then the second sentence:
It was also recommended as a resource for the National Conference on the Teaching of Evolution (NCTE)
That's not really true, either. In fact, it's blatantly false as we find this disclaimer at the bottom of the reference page:
Inclusion within this matrix should not be considered a recommendation by either the UC Museum of Paleontology or the Steering Committee, as no systematic evaluation criteria have been applied.
67.135.49.147 05:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this assessment. Edit as you feel necessary about this.--ZayZayEM 05:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just deleted the whole lot. It really doesn't seem notable information. It sounds a lot like trying to puff the website up as much as possible by using a very teneous liberal interpretation of "cited by".--ZayZayEM 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Widely cited"