He was the author of several books and articles espousing creationism. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that Gish used similar openings, assumptions about his opponent, slides, and even jokes. Can I borrow this item? Duane Gish To learn more about Copies Direct watch this short online video. Can I view this online?
|Published (Last):||7 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||11.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.50 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Read "Have You Been Brainwashed? In it, you will note claims of human and dinosaur footprints together at the Paluxy River site. Also, note claims that the Precambrian is void of fossils. See below for evidence that Gish, the author of the pamphlet and very influential in the ICR, knew the latter claim to be false as of Call a noted scientific publisher, say, Sinauer or W.
See if you can find a book that uses Piltdown or Nebraska man to build a case for human evolution. You will fail. Now, tell me: based on the results of your exercise, which side cares about presenting "facts"? Which side is diligent about refusing to propagate misproven or misleading "information"? Why do you think this is so?
Plimer obtained a copy of the same pamphlet, and hammered Gish for the inaccuracies in it. The debate took place in Australia; the video tape has been converted to American TV format and my own copy is an unknown-number-of-times removed from the original and is of mediocre quality especially the sound.
When I am not sure of a word, it appears with a question mark following. Editorial remarks are in [square brackets]. All punctuation is my own invention, which I use in an attempt to convey the flow of the talk. Note that Plimer, in my opinion, was overly aggressive and mean-spirited in this debate. However, in my opinion he thrashed Gish mainly due to the same pamphlet which is discussed above. The creationists will not allow refutations by scientists.
They will not allow a process of improving or correcting. I use the same principle. There is a diagram there that says, "precambrian: void of fossils.
The precambrian is not void of fossils; the precambrian is extremely rich in fossils. He [Gish] has come to the country where there are many precambrian fossils going back to 3 thousand 3 hundred million years ago. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed? We also see on the same page, the Cambrian; a geological time period some time ago.
And I quote, "The billions of fossils found are all of highly complex forms of life. There on one simple diagram we have three lies. That is their scientific publication. And we read, "not a single indisputable multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock supposedly older than Cambrian rocks. But what? And we have an interesting situation here.
I omit that section because it is not relevant to the pamphlet, other than in showing that some creationists contradict Gish. So we now have 55 words and 5 lies. One lie every 11 words in his publication. Plimer quoted from my book, or little "Brainwashed" booklet, written 17 years ago. And at that time, according to Dr. Cloud to that effect. Because he said, first of all, you would not know, you could not establish whether these rocks were precambrian or cambrian And furthermore there were many pseudo-fossils that had been discovered.
Now, since that time, as I described in my debate, there are many published reports of micro-fossils in precambrian rocks. And furthermore, the Ediacaran which I did describe in my talk, is supposed to be precambrian. I discussed all of them in my book, "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record," which was published two years ago. Plimer consult this book? To accuse me of lying is terribly, terribly wrong. I stated the facts as I knew them then, as Preston Cloud and others have stated.
In this edition [waving book], , 15 years later, I have published what I described in my lecture. Plimer completely ignored what I said in my lecture, and what I said in my book, to try to accuse me of lying. It was written 17 years ago and he refuted it. Why is it I could buy it outside, 20 minutes ago? Gish got hammered for distributing the pamphlet in He admitted that he knew no later than that some of the claims in it were false.
Why is the ICR still selling it? Apparently all the flack about it on the information superfreeway has had an effect. The new version is undated as near as I can tell, but must have been created within the last 6 months or so as the copy I got at the ICR office then was dated and still included the claim, "fine clear tracks of dinosaurs and man".
Now if only they would do some science instead of just responding to it.