quote:
Which includes the defeated pseudo-scientists (alias for evolutionists) he debated for thirty years prior to his retirement.
If Gish's scientific evidence was so incredibly damning to Biology, then why didn't he publish his incredible evidence in the professional journals annonymously?
If he had some revolutionary new scientific theory that had turned what we thought we knew about Biology, Genetics, and Biochemistry on its head, why didn't he use all of the donation money he got from supporters and do the research which would validate it?
Real scientists don't spend their time lying in order to gain religious converts using dishonest tactics.
For just one of many examples consider that Gish repeated false claims
for years regarding the bombadier beetle even after being literally shown, in public, that his claims were false.
quote:
Einstein spent less than 5%of his worklife in a lab and Hawkings even less yet they are considered 1st class scientists... theoretical physicists.
No shit,
theoretical physicists spend little time in the lab.
They don't do lab work at all.
Biochemists, however, do most of their work in labs.
How come Gish left the lab decades ago if he really wanted to contribute to science?
(Also, it's "Hawking", not "Hawking
s").
quote:
Gish read prodigiously,
Irrelevant.
quote:
maintained his scientific societal memberships
Irrelevant. You pay a membership fee for most of them. If I wanted to use my past credentials to influence gullible people to believe I had some kind of scientisfic standing, I'd maintain them too.
quote:
and wrote a number of books on his views all with impeccible footnotes and references.
You say that as if getting the footnotes and references right in a book that one has written is some kind of major accomplishment instead of the bare basic standard that any undergraduate should be able to do.
That Gish is notable among Creationists for managing this minor task speaks volumes for the usual level of scholarship among these authors as a group.
This points up another aspect of why these footnotes and references are so often absent from such books, and why we know that Gish stopped using any scientific rigor in his work long ago. When one goes to the trouble to look up the references and footnotes in Gish's books, one can quite frequently discover that he has misunderstood the source material or misquoted it.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2006 05:26 PM