which facts are you disputing?
I'm not disputing anything.
I'm rejecting the source as I do anything from conservative or creationist sources. There is no reason to look at anything from either of those kinds of sources because they are both consistently dishonest. They do not share my agenda, values, or methods, so I'm pretty uninterested in anything they churn out using them. I thought I was clear about my repudiation of these people, their opinions, or their desires.
Perhaps you consider this the genetic fallacy: "a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context." That might be the case if I were arguing that these people's conclusions are false based on the source rather than the argument. But I'm not saying that they are wrong, just that I don't trust them to be honest enough to justify looking at their material.
One might say, "Judge the argument, not the source." I'm not even interested in looking at the argument, since I don't trust the source to be honest. Truth is not a value of theirs. Persuasion is. That's what I mean about different agendas and different values. You might say all I need do is fact-check the claims, but that's not enough. How about what's been deliberately and deceptively left out? I recall a piece of creationist apologetics claiming that man could not have descended from a common ancestor of the other extant great apes because man only has 23 pairs of chromosomes compared to the 24 pairs found in all other apes, and the fact that the dropout of an entire chromosome would lead to death, probably in the womb, not a new line that could evolve into the human race. This is a compelling argument, and if one simply checked all of the fact mentioned, none would be found to be incorrect. The lie is in the omission, not the argument.
I wasn't fooled, because I was aware of human chromosome 2, but what about those reading along who aren't? My advice to them is to get their science elsewhere, from sources that share their agenda, values, and methods.
And that is why I'm not interested in conservative apologetics, either. Same agenda, methods, and values: Lying is OK if it furthers the cause by making an argument seem more persuasive, which is the goal for both of these types of people.
That goes for the rabid, tendentious conservative ideologues posting on RF as well. I assume that they are dishonest, or else serving as unwitting vectors for those who are, the latter how I see most of the creationists, but not the conservatives.
So, not any kind of fallacy since it is not saying that the conclusions are wrong because of their source, but rather, the source can't be trusted and therefore it's arguments are not contradicted, but rather, not considered.
And I am not disputing anything from you or your sources. I'm simply uninterested in content from such sources.