Talk:Answers in Genesis
From EvoWiki
My favorite self-contradiction from AIG was on their site for years, but they did eventually figure out that it was making them look preposterous and change it. Once upon a time they had an article on Archaeopteryx that informed the reader that Archy might well be a fake, just a dinosaur fossil on which some feathers had been added. However, if it turned out to be a real fossil, then that was no problem because it was a full bird with no dinosaur features!
I was quite saddened the day AIG decided to get behind the "It's a full bird" argument entirely, removing the old Archaeopteryx article from their canon. It was a think of joy to behold. :-)
--Suttkus 11:30, 28 June 2006 (BST)
- Are there any internet catches of the old article somewhere?--Mr A. 13:30, 28 June 2006 (BST)
I'm not sure where to begin looking.
--Suttkus 18:02, 28 June 2006 (BST)
You people are so hypocritical. When non-creationists corrected their understanding or discovery, you call that science. When a creationist does that, you call it contradiction. For the worse, as the argument put in the article (it should be taken off the article, it makes the EvoWiki look stupid), the person added the old and new understanding together as if they were BOTH true and make argument based on that. It is indeed a stupid political trick. You disgraced yourself as a scientist. --Juvenis 14:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- So, then, can you explain the scholarly merits of Ken Ham's eulogy of Steve Irwin, where he claims to be certain that, since Steve Irwin did not repent the awful sin of believing in evolution, he's now rotting in the fires of Hell?--Mr A. 15:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I mean, honestly, if all you intend to do here is antagonize us, we can have you banned.--Mr A. 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am a nobody in the evolution/creation debate. If you think I am disburbing enough to be banned, then go ahead, I will take it as an honor. --Juvenis 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, can you explain how frightening people into converting to Christianity has scientific merit, and is not worth criticizing, and yet, critizing someone who does this is worth criticizing over?--Mr A. 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am a nobody in the evolution/creation debate. If you think I am disburbing enough to be banned, then go ahead, I will take it as an honor. --Juvenis 16:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- You seem to miss the point. The point is that those people swapped from "dino with no bird features" to "bird with no dino features". That would be impossible if they had actually looked at the features of the fossil with any expertise. Even if it were a "bird with no dino features", how could they be so extremely wrong the first time? This shows that they don't care about facts, they just care about the result - and the result has to be "no transitional fossil" no matter what.
