Talk:Answers in Genesis/Archive1

SBS
I am doing a side by side AIG arguments not to use next to conservapedia's use of those arguments. I'm about a quarter done, perhaps I'll finish it soon--Damo2353 10:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry if I stole your fire! I came across it while looking for something else and thought it was interesting. I'll do no more on it.  I' sure your side-by-side will be most illuminating.--Bobbing up 10:41, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 * In fact, why don't you make a sandbox? Others might want to join in. It really does show how CP is even beyond the creationist pale.--Bobbing up 10:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Well I started the project with much gusto but I found that even CP uses only a few of the arguments. I was a little surprised myself but I'll have another look at it after work tonight.--Damo2353 16:12, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

History
I was looking to add to the article as part of my Australian creationist kick I am on, but I can't work out were it came from. I was reading their story here. I can see that it started when Ken Ham moved from Australia to the US, as part of a "loan" from the Creation Science Foundation to the Institute for Creation Research, he formed Creation Science Ministries, but can't work out were AiG came from. They start using the name suddenly. As far as I can tell, CSM became AiG-US and CSF became AiG-Australia which became Creation Ministries International. Is that right? 03:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember reading about this somewhere (scarily enough; too much of this wiki stuff), but I can't remember where. There was a fission there somewhere.  What you describe sounds right....  Sterile 03:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the split is going to make tracking the history harder. I notice in the AiG history they go to great lengths to mention how they didn't need money from the CSF. I remember a feature in The Australian about this, I'll have to see if it is in their online archives. 03:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting Creation Ministries International claim they had to give AiG money when they first started, but AiG disagrees. When I get round to writing that history section that will make for a juicy tid-bit. 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting
Andy has yet to admit that the site is biased. He's still pretending it's neutral. I was trawling through the Conservapedia version of this to see if there was any info worth mentioning (there is none), I found the talk page. Dating back to 2007 it has some interesting insights into the relationship between Conservapedia and the RW Cabal. Nowadays, AmesG would barely get his second comment off before being blocked. 12:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a more tolerant place once CP, it at least use to pretend to hear the other side out. I remember arguing with Andy for hours and him giving me a soft block because he thought I did good work. Those were the days, before Bugler and the return of TK. 12:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

State of the Nation 2
Could anyone (with more bandwith than me) give us a precis of this? Found via this. 21:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, but it'll have to wait for the kiddies to go to bed. It's an hour long. I can have a rough one done by 2359 EST. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No sweat, its been there a while. [[image:Smiley.gif]] 22:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing. I am only 10 minutes or so into it and I want to puke. So far, it boils down to "Obama said we are no longer a xian nation..." "Blah blah quotemine quotemine quotemine quotemine blargle rargle blaargity GAY MARRIAGE BLAAAAARGH". So let this be notice that I am missing my self-imposed deadline out of journalistic integrity. I am going to need to calm down and sober up before writing a precis on this chunk of shit's words. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just what in the fuck is "Historical" science, how does that differentiate itself from science, and since when were biological sciences and technological sciences mutually exclusive (i.e., one apparently discards the scientific process)? And yes, I am liveblogging this video under the influence. Thank whomever for the pause function. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

cut well meaning but unedited insertion by my delightful Susan
State of the nation 2

Following President Obama’s annual “State of the Union” address, biblical apologist Ken Ham will soon offer his “State of the Nation” speech, highlighting how far the U.S. has wandered from its moral foundations, and calling Christians back to their biblical roots. ...

“Many Christians have been duped into accepting a false idea: that there is a ‘neutral’ position they can take in regard to social issues,” Ham said. “Some Christians even accept the myth that the U.S. Constitution declares that there should be a separation of church and state. They are hesitant to inject Christian beliefs into politics. “God’s Word, however, makes it clear that there is no neutral position,” Ham continued. “God’s people need to unashamedly and uncompromisingly stand on the Bible and its absolute standards. We need to proclaim a Christian worldview and the Gospel, all the while giving answers for the hope we have.”

...

“We need to learn what we can do to call America back to the only sure foundation—biblical authority,” Ham explained. “We need to stand unashamedly upon God’s Word in the face of a skeptical society and find out how we can do more than just watch our country slip into a moral quagmire.” A video of the "speech" is at the linked site.

This seems to need work before insertion to me. 04:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AiG on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis Do I want to subscribe to this or not? On the one hand, it lets me keep tabs on it; you can't just say creationism is silly without listening to what the latest claims are. But on the other hand, I imagine it would kill my sanity pretty quick. 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)