Talk:No Answers In Genesis

From EvoWiki

Someone wrote this in the article:

"Further evidence of this is the list of Creationist letters which consist entirely of hate-filled, poorly written abuse which appear to be written by iliterates. This is of course an old tactict to make the opposition look bad and NoAiG has been criticed for it many times. There are also allegations that some of these letters have been invented by NoAiG for the purpose of making Creationists look like hate-filled bigots."

Nonsense. It's not their fault they get letters from illiterates. Creationists look bad without any help. --tk (t) 15:02, 3 Aug 2005 (BST)

Well, to give the devils their due, the selection process for the addition of letters to the page is quite biased, by which I just mean that he's only going to put up letters that make creationists look bad. Of course, my own experience having a website with anti-creationist material on it is that most if not nearly all letters I got from creationists were illiterate and suitable for inclusion on NAG's page. (Note that No Answers In Genesis uses NAG as an abbreviation rather than NoAiG, or at least did back when I was taking active part in their forum.)

NAG's letters page cannot, however, be an ad hominem argument because it isn't meant as an argument. Like my defunct "Great Moments in Strange Creationism" page, it's just a collection or weirdness for humor purposes, not "You should reject creationism because creationists write letters like this!"

But I absolutely agree that there is no concievable reason why NAG should be making up it's own letters. Given the quality of what so many creationists are willing to produce, there isn't any need at all to make them up. --Suttkus 16:57, 12 March 2006 (GMT)