I happen to think that they would be better advised to use more caution about what they call a fact. Or, to put it differently, I can see why randman objects to the way that they discuss some of this. However, I think randman is wrong in depicting it as being done with the intention to deceive.
Could be a very useful discussion then, if we can steer away from that accusation. I haven't had the patience to read through much of the material at Talkorigins myself, but it would be interesting to see a good analysis of their arguments.