click here to get Adobe Acrobat Reader which reads PDF files
Posted on 05/06/2003 11:22:05 AM PDT by \/\/ayne
9:00 AM “Origins of Life and the Universe” . . . . .Hank Giesecke
10:00 AM “Fifty Facts Why Evolution Doesn’t Work” . . . .Russell Miller
11:00 AM Lunch
1:00 PM “Age of the Earth, and Intelligent Design” . . . .Hank Hiesecke
2:00 PM “Data from Mt. Saint Helens” . . . . .Russell Miller
3:00 PM Break
4:30 PM Dinner available at U of A’s McKale Center
6:00 PM Debate at University of Arizona McKale Center “Alternative World Views: Evolution and Creation”
Dr. Duane Gish and Professor Peter Sherman
Sunday May 11, 2003
Calvary Tucson East Campus
8:00 and 10:20 AM “Take Creation Captive”.......Hank Giesecke
Calvary Tucson West Campus
9:10 and 11:30 AM “Creation or Chaos”......Dr. John Meyer
Calvary Tucson East Campus
6:00 PM “Why 600 Scientists Reject Evolution” ......Dr. John Meyer
Gish a charlatan? That from someone who is a follower of Darwin????????
Have not read his books, but I have seen him attacked by evolutionists here with ad hominems but no facts. The one time an evolutionist mentioned a fact on which he claimed that Gish was absolutely wrong was regarding the supposed first mammal. Gish had written that the top of the skull of that fossil presented as evidence by evolutionists was a paste up job. (this is important because the only 'mammalian' feature of it was the 3 earbones). When the evolutionist was finally forced to provide a picture of the skull in question it showed clearly that the skull was a paste up job.
The reason evolutionists attack Gish is because he is not one of them and goes around telling the false evidence used by evolutionists to promote their theory.
Of course only evolutionists should be pinged. Evolutionists cannot win an honest discussion unless they are only talking to themselves.
Gish has a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley. It's not an Ivy League degree, but then most of the Ivys have inferior biochemistry departments. At any rate, name-calling isn't a logical debate technique, as someone with the handle "ThinkPlease" should know.
Gee, seems the evolutionists in spite of their SUPPOSED mountain of evidence for their theory are afraid of honest debate.
Now I ask you, why would people who claim that their theory is absolutely, indubitably, correct and carries the Good Housekeeping seal of approval be afraid to discuss and show their evidence when faced with opponents they consider beyond contempt? What are they afraid of? Cannot the mountain of evidence speak for itself? Cannot the geniuses of evolution defeat those they consider fools?
Physician, heal thyself!...
Cite your sources, please. Your charges are weighty against this man's character. Such charges should be supported by weighty evidence.
Funny that with all that 'evidence' so easily available for your side, you and your fellows need to engage in constant insults and ad hominems of opponents. One would think that if the evidence was as strong as you CLAIM it to be, you could swat opponents with facts instead of degrading the debate with foul tactics.
Reason you must do so though is that there is tons of Evidence Disproving Evolution so you must engage in arrogant bluffs in the hope that people will fail to see that the evolutionist emperor has no clothes.
You are getting better Jenny! You almost got it right! It should read 'the vast atheist UNscientific conspiracy'.
No, what the opponents of evolution do not accept is made up stories. That is two different things. The fossil record does not support evolution. The Cambrian explosion totally contradicts evolution, so much in fact that it made Gould and Eldredge give up on Darwinian evolution. The fossil record is also full of gaps in the most important places - such as in mammalian evolution. The greatest change in organism functioning in vertebrates - and the most recent also. This change should because of both these reasons be the most detailed, the fullest, and best supported of all the changes in species and yet there is practically no evidence at all for the gradual evolution of mammals.
As to DNA evidence, there is none. The DNA evidence contradicts evolution. The evolutionists have to 'pick and choose' similarities amongst the millions of species in existence with thousands of different genes to make up what seems like an argument for their side. Anyone can support their side by picking and choosing what fits their theory. The problem for evolution is that there are numerous examples where the DNA does not fit the evolutionary 'tree'.
Repeating the mantra proves nothing. Let's see the evidence. Let's discuss the evidence, not what someone whose job depends on kneeling before the Church of Darwin asserts.
[Last Update: March 7, 1994]
... These are from the video tape of the March 18, 1988 debate between Ian Plimer and Duane Gish...
Now, furthermore, Dr. Plimer quoted from my book, or little "Brainwashed" booklet, written 17 years ago. It's a little, ah, book, you might call it a comic-style book, it's not written in comic terms at all, but it was written 17 years ago.
They are selling the tract mentioned at ICR, but the date is 1994. The talk-origins hit piece leaves the update at the bottom and hides the never-mind there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.