Re: Duane Gish in Peru

It's also always been a mystery to me just who proved that faked
specimens were phoney. I've not read any claims that the fakery was
proven by someone in the creationist community. Hmmmm! - JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

> Hi ASAers
>
> I have been following your discussions with great interest for three
> years.
>
> Today I met the famous creationist speaker Duane Gish. I know him by
> his publication "Creacion, evolucion y el registro fosil" since
> pregraduate. When I became a christian, this was the first book that I
> bought on the topic "Science and christianity" (Up to now, there is
> nothing written here in spanish in this topic that is not creationist).
>
> He gave two speeches, one in the auditorium of the Faculty of
> Chemistry of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos where I
> studied for my M.S. in Zoology and the other in the Christian and
> Missionary Alliance, my church.
>
> Here are some ideas that I recorded from him in both places:
>
> (1) There is no evidence of any kind of transicional forms. There is
> not any fossil that shows the transcicion of invertebrate to
> vertebrate. The first bat for example, had its sonar system complete.
> (2) When he was asked on the Archaeopterix, he replied that it was a
> true bird. It had wings with normal feathers, perching feet and good
> flight. The teeth and claws don't give any evidence of antiquity.
> Quoted Feduccia telling that he believes that Archaeopterix was like a
> modern bird. A feather is very different from a reptilian scale. The
> claim of an issue of National Geographic magazine that the missing
> link between birds and dinosaurs was discovered in China was later
> confirmed to be a faked specimen.
> (3) Due to the fall of man, animals began to kill each others and
> changed from vegetarian to meat eaters.
>
> Here I made him the question "How the meat eaters were designed after
> the fall?" He explained again the consequences of the fall and said
> that God could have created animals with sharp teeth to be vegetarian
> and then changed to meat eaters.
>
> (4) Dinosaurs are extint because they failed to repopulate the earth
> after the flood. The new weather has less water vapor that pre-flood
> athmosphere.
> (5) He recognized that no human bones were found in the same place as
> dinosaur bones, but quotes that footprints of humans and dinosaurs
> have been found together
> (6) The radiometric methods to date the earth are based in assumptions
> and can not give us any evidence for dating any rock.
> (7) Genetics give us by exploring mithocondrial DNA to a 6000 year of
> the first human. The 200000 years data is an assumption of evolutionists.
> (8) Evolution violates everything about physical and chemical laws.
> (9) Evolutionist dominates all the educational system in USA, for
> creation scientists is almost impossible to publish in technical
> journals. Creation is as religious as evolution, so both should be
> taught in public schools.
>
> After the last talk, my wife insisted to get closer and greet him, and
> discuss with him. (She knows that I believe in evolution and wanted to
> confront him with my deep questions on the topic). I didn't do that.
> Gish is an old man and he looked very tired at that moment. I just
> told him that I am a christian biologist whose interest is in the
> conservation of creation; not creationsim. And that his book was the
> first one about science and christianity that I bought. Then said
> goodby with a "God bless you".
>
> I will appreciate comments or guidance to web pages for critics to
> Gish's points here recorded.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Oscar Gonzalez
>
> Estimado Sr. Gonzales:
>
> Me alegro de oir de Vd. otra vez. Me acuerdo de su visita al conjunto
> de ASA hace ya algunos anos. Lo demas en ingles para todo el grupo.
>
> Many years ago I heard Gish speak at the AAAS Southwestern Section
> meeting at Santa Barbara, CA. He was asked what evidence could make
> him change his mind. He responded, "There is none." There was a gasp
> from the audience. I understand this position to require that any
> evidence, no matter how solid, which conflicts with 6-day creationism
> has to be denied and rejected, no matter the cost. Michael Roberts has
> given you some relevant information. I cannot agree with Paul Reese's
> claim for ID (intelligent design). To make their point, Phillip
> Johnson has to lie that methodological naturalism is metaphysical
> naturalism, that is, materialism. The rest of their claim comes down
> to "I can't imagine how this happened, therefore it could only happen
> through divine intervention." Already some of the series of steps
> which produce their "impossible" results have been elucidated.
> Further, from the philosophical, I consider God's continual
> providential support of all creation to be correct, rather than
> occasional intervention.
>
> Your question about all animals being vegetarian is a good one, and
> the answer given is stupid. It is not just that animals with sharp
> teeth might chew on vegetation (though not efficiently), but that
> obligate carnivores, like the Felidae, do not have enough gut to
> process vegetation. I think the cat (Felis domesticus) gut is about 3
> m long. As omnivores, our gut is about three times as long. Herbivores
> have almost incredibly long guts, and many involve bacterial
> processing so that they can extract nutrients. I recall a person who
> got the idea that he should only eat raw vegetable foods because
> cooking damages necessary nutrients and, of course, animal foods are
> poison. He came close to starving before he was persuaded that he was
> being foolish. Our teeth are far more efficient grinders than cat
> teeth, and we've a lot more gut. It had to take a miracle for cats to
> survive until man fell. Do you suppose there was a special amino acid
> paste miraculously provided so they wouldn't quickly starve?
>
> As to Gish's claims, there are more and more transitional forms being
> found. Not long ago there were no "whales" on the way to becoming
> whales. Now there are a number of creatures with legs transitional to
> the current whale skeleton. These are matters that have been noted in
> the technical journals and the more popular press.
>
> As to archeopteryx, there have been a number of recent discoveries of
> feathered dinosaurs. There have also been a number of other birds with
> reptilian characteristics or reptiles with avian characteristics
> discovered in China. As to a total absence of mammalian precursors,
> there are living chordates that don't have vertebrae that suggest
> intermediate forms. From what I recall of a course taken long ago, it
> would be difficult to fossilize amphioxus or tunicates. But there is
> other evidence now that we are sequencing genomes. We are finding a
> continuity from archaebacteria through fungi to all fauna. It sure
> looks like sequential development.
>
> Poor maladapted dinosaurs! It's easy to come up with a "reason" for
> their demise if no other question is asked. But I'd like to know where
> there was room on the Ark for apatosaurs, tyranosaurs, and other big
> guys. Further, the creationist display in the San Diego area pulled
> their claim that human footprints were found in strata with dinosaur
> prints. I will say dogmatically that the supposed human prints have
> been shown to be partial prints from reptiles.
>
> If radiometric dating is in error, then there are no nuclear reactors,
> no nuclear bombs, for the physics that produced the latter supports
> the empirical data that originally established the half-lives of the
> series used for dating. On the other hand, I recall an article I read
> in the CRI journal on radio-carbon dating. The technique was corrected
> by scientists using annual ring counts of bristlecone pines. The
> article claimed that the trees sometimes produced more than one ring
> per year, necessary to keep the years down to 6000 with something like
> 8000 rings. Since the article was published, the ring count has been
> extended, so that there would have to be nearly three rings every year
> to have creation 6000 years ago. On the other hand, maybe evolution so
> blinds scientists that they can't even count.
>
> I skip 7. 8 is based on their nonsensical view of entropy. If they
> were right, cleaning a room would be impossible, for disorder must
> inevitably increase. It's true that entropy increases in closed
> systems. But the earth is not a closed system, since there is a
> constant input of energy from the sun. Neither is any living thing a
> closed system.
>
> I think of another of their points. They take the measurements of the
> earth's magnetic field (as I recall they began about a century and a
> half ago) and extrapolate linearly backward. There has been a measured
> decrease, so they claim that the field would have been unbelievably
> high 20,000 years ago. They will not recognize that the spreading of
> the oceanic rift zones preserves an accurate record of the earth's
> magnetic field over time. Modern techniques allow accurate measurement
> of the annual movement. Distance from the rift, along with the
> thickness of precipitated material over the basement, gives at least a
> crude measure of time, which is consistent with radio-dates. I haven't
> seen the original papers, but some of the folks on line have noted
> that there are "creationists" who recognize continental drift. But
> since it has to be post-Flood, movement had to be something like 30
> mph or 50 km/h.
>
> Why does evolution dominate the scientific establishment? Is it
> perhaps because creationists talk nonsense about entropy? That they
> repeat such things as human and dinosaur simultaneity when they admit
> it's false? That they answer question A with information that is
> incompatible with facts surrounding B, and questions about B with what
> their answer to A proves false? I reported Gish's talk to the AAAS
> group. They listened respecfully while he spouted nonsense. Further,
> if evolution is as religious as his creationism, then it would be
> impossible for a lot of us to be theistic evolutionists, that is, to
> believe that God created over vast reaches of time.
>
> I was originally taught creationism, told that there was scientific
> evidence that the universe was young. I discovered that I was lied to
> when I began to read the original scientific papers. I also learned
> that "creationists" could not be consistent in what they claimed were
> proofs. Michael has further noted that, when checked, the quotations
> from honest scientists in "creationist" works are twisted, misquoted,
> misinterpreted and give no support to the YEC views. However, they
> have persuaded the majority of US evangelicals that they are standing
> for scripture against the attacks of atheisticevolution (one word,
> making TE impossible). Since most missionaries come from this group of
> evangelicals, I don't wonder that the only Bible-science works you
> find in Spanish represent YEC. They are the majority in Christian
> bookstores in this country.
>
> I am persuaded that YEC are doing the devil's work. They claim to have
> a lock on what the Bible teaches. Consequently young people bright
> enough to study science believe that the Bible is a collection of
> lies. So they reject it. You've seen through the nonsense, so you can
> give a study in Spanish that will counter the falsehoods. I hope
> you'll tackle the job.
>
> Que Dios le bendiga en su servicio,
> Dave
>
Received on Sat Oct 16 20:00:34 2004