Mr.Kitchen

talkorigins links to many creationist sites.

trueorigins links to no Pro-evolution sites.

<a href="http://www.icr.org" target="_blank">www.icr.org</a> has no links section at all. ICR also does not allow any one with pro-evolution views on their web-forum.

Interesting, my question to any creationist reading this is does that improve your opinion of the icr's and trueorigin's credability, not affect it, or decrease it.

seebs

It will presumably not affect their opinion.

Strictly speaking, secondary issues like this shouldn't affect your opinion of an argument, but in practice, if your argument has merit, you don't need to hide from counterarguments.

ex-robot

Doesn't bother me. It probably has to do with not wanting to give away free advertising rather than "i hope they don't find that site" or whatever.

xr

Silent Dave

That's the creationist paradigm for you: truth is something that needs to be sold (hence advertised) rather than studied.


Dave

scigirl

Another thing I've noticed about evolution versus creation sites:

Very often you have to follow several links, and wade through a sea of "contribute money so we can spread God's word" to find even a hint of actual science at creation sites. Places like talkorigins and the evolution evidence page: the science is right there for all to see.

Secondly, references in peer reviewed journals. Evolution sites: has em. ICR: ha ha.

ex-robot: you honestly believe that is the reason? Did you realize that ICR employees are required to sign a statement of faith? That's an anathma to science, and frankly, a joke too.

scigirl

ex-robot

????? What are you talking about here? Re-read my post. I said advertising as in true origins advertising a link to talkorigions or whatever. This has nothing to do with the selling of goods.

xr

Coragyps

Their forum has apparently vanished, anyway. My sock puppet over there was dying of inattention, anyway.

ex-robot

????? My post was about links to other sites.

xr

Kvalhion

Free advertising to what, exactly? Since when is providing references considered advertising?

This has everything to do with credibility. It has to do with acknowledging opposing points of view and refuting them.

Essentially it is pretty intellectually dishonest to provide material that is supposed to educate and present it in such a manner as if it is unchallenged fact.