Hmm... 'reliable'. It depends on what you mean by reliable. It's certainly reliable for presenting false or misleading information for those wishing to reinforce their creationist beliefs. e.g. The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. So if the Bible says so, lets make up the facts. Of course, all this is backed up by 'reliable' references to other creationist literature, or misquotes from elsewhere.
 Just found this at the 'back' of the site: As Answers in Genesis is a faith-funded ministry, our staff may not have the option of devoting much time to answering scientific questions that fall outside of our area of specialty.
Well, there you go. Their speciality isn't science, yet they claim to provide 'answers' to all your questions about the origin of Earth and mankind. Does that explain how reliable they are?
[This message has been edited by David unfamous, 01-17-2003]
Answers in Genesis isn't reliable as an organization. I would, however, consider the submitted literature in the AIG archives such as Baumgardner & Vardiman et al. As long as I can confirm their research.
quote:Originally posted by TrueCreation: Answers in Genesis isn't reliable as an organization. I would, however, consider the submitted literature in the AIG archives such as Baumgardner & Vardiman et al. As long as I can confirm their research.
"Why do you say they are not re-liable? I have talked with Ken Ham on the phone both in public (on air) and in private. " --I'm sure Ken Ham and the rest of the AIG gang are really nice fellows, but as I have often illustrated, they (as well as many other YECist org's) still can't get past their biased methodology to scientific inquiry(eg. the tenents of the ICR). But I do respect the works of individuals who happen to submit work to the AIG, after all, where else is it going to go?
BTW - Its nice to exchange an idea or two with you Brad
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-18-2003]