Talk:Apologetics Press

Contributions
I'd like this page to reach the heights that the Conservapedia article has, in Snark and in content. If this goal can't be realised, then at least make the page better through contribution. I'll be logging off for tonight (editors have to sleep sometime!), I wonder how this page will "evolve" by the 'morrow!Several ingredients (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Problem
There's an obvious NPOV problem with the article. The tone emotional and confrontational. Are we going to be rational, at all objective, or aren't we?
 * RationalWiki isn't NPOV. But I'll take a look for anything factually inaccurate. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 09:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is NPOV a problem?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In practice, NPOV means strenuously avoiding calling a spade a spade because calling it a spade offends a few extremists. To be fair, I think the BoN is complaining that the article isn't NPOV, and they wish it was.   10:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wish people would stop confusing objectivity and neutrality. Scarlet A.pngmoral 10:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Debunking?
Is there anything that you would mind debunking in the article? Say, this http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556 or this http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3593&topic=332 ??? The article on the age of the earth is quite nice compared to this article. (77.111.246.33 (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC))

This too: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=45&topic=31 (77.111.246.33 (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC))