Its a fallacy to condemn the source and ignore the message.
Nope. The fallacy, called the genetic fallacy, occurs when somebody declares that an argument's conclusion is wrong because of its source or author.
There is no fallacy involved to say that a source is not trustworthy, and rather than declare its assertions wrong, one simply isn't interested in information coming from that source.
A classic example was a creationist apologetics source that argued that man could not have come from the same ancestor as the other great apes, since they all have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man has only three. The author argues that if any 24 chromosome ape simply gave birth to an descendant missing an entire chromosome, that descendant would die, not pass the mutation into the population's gene pool.
The problem here is that important information has been left out, without which it's pretty hard to disagree with the apologist's argument. You can evaluate the essay all you want, and never be able to find the problem in it. You have to do a review of the subject to learn about human chromosome 2
Once one understands the dishonesty of such sites and sources - and we all have dozens of examples of the dishonesty rampant in creationist apologetics, one simply and justifiably refuses to even consider anything from such sources.
Ethos is the term used in the philosophy of argumentation to refer to the way the speaker's audience relates to him apart from his message. Does the source seem knowledgeable? What are his apparent values? Does he seem to have an unstated agenda? Does he seem trustworthy?
These things can damage the effectiveness of a speaker independent of his actual argument (logos). Christian apologetics and apologists fail at all of those. Their agenda is to promote religion, not to spread factual knowledge. They will write whatever they think promotes that agenda, however dishonest. And you won't find many that know the science they condemn. So no, I won't even look at such links.
Conservative news and editorial sites such as the one you cited, En-Volve, suffer from the same problem. What won't Limbaugh or Hannity say if they think that it will convince their audience to support Republicans? So why even read them or listen to them? I don't need to rebut them to simply dismiss them out of hand.
Why is that legitimate? Because nothing that is true is known only to Christian apologists or conservative indoctrinators, meaning that anything that is true can also be found in a more respected news or science source, which I expect my apologist or conservative friends to link to if they want a skeptic to read it. If the claim can only be found on such sites, one can be pretty confident that it is a lie.
How about a point by point rebuttal to the argument above if you have one, or just an admission that you don't if you don't. How about either explaining why the individual points made and supported are either something you agree with, or a rebuttal to them that explains why their supporting arguments are incorrect in your estimation. For example, do you agree that it is not a logical fallacy to reject a site with a reputation for dishonesty? Do you think that something found only on an apologetics site and nowhere else should be trusted?
Please be thorough.
I can tell you from personal experience that God is real.
If you mean the god of the Christian Bible, I can assure you that you are wrong. Since you didn't feel the need to support your claim, I don't either, but I will anyway. For starters, that god is described in mutually incompatible terms (think married bachelor) making it logically impossible.
Also, the evidence in support of the theory of biological evolution rules out the god of Christian scripture, even if the theory is subsequently falsified. That evidence that previously suggested that the theory was correct, now proven incorrect, needs to be explained in the light of the falsifying finding, and creation by a god that wants to be known, believed, loved, and worshiped is inconsistent with what could only be understood as a great deception designed to mislead mankind. Is that the Christian god?
During the quarantine we have been in it has been amazing to see how he has provided both physically and spiritually for the needs of those who serve him.
But no vaccine from this god. No peace in the land. I'd settle for an honest election, but I'm afraid this "amazing" god won't be up to that task, either.
How much worse would the nation look like if it were Satan running things? This is from a song called Sympathy for the Devil:
"
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank"
Sound familiar?