Gish's Hypocrisy on Evolution

The next chapter in DBD, on page 62-63, is entitled (Sic) Evolutionary Fairy Tales. Note the title being hypocritical because Gish and others like him is known to promote fairy tales of their own. Especially the Bullfrog Myth, which is one of very best examples of Gish Garbage and creationists hypocritically promoting fairy tales of their own. This is where Gish claims that the proteins found in the blood of a bullfrog is exactly the same as human blood proteins. Which means, if this is the case, then Bullfrog does equal a handsome prince! Now that's a YEE claim worthy to be branded as a fairy tale.

References,

http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

Denial of Transitional Forms

In this chapter, Gish gives out all sorts of strawman claims about evolution by claiming that scientists have no idea where did dinosaurs evolve from, which is false. Scientists clearly knew that dinosaurs evolve from Archosaurian ancestors such as Lagosuchus or Euparkeria for example. Does Gish care? Nope, he doesn’t. He just ignores them and makes up another false notion about mutations being what he calls “genetic accidents” which they are not and gives out an idiot example on how Pterosaurs could never have survived with only “half a wing” which blatantly ignores the existence of the likes of Sharovipteryx, a Triassic reptile possibly the ancestor of pterosaurs known for having "half a wings' attached to its hind legs which helps it to glide from tree to tree. Look here for other example of how some animals survive with only "half a wing."

In the end, Gish blatantly and hypocritically declares, without shame, that evolution is a fairy tale— exactly what Creation and thousands of years truly is! When Gish blatantly declares that evolution is a fairy tale, he flat out denies the existence of transitional forms. Especially in the marine reptiles such as Mixosaurus, who was an ancestral ichthyosaur that lived during the early Triassic period. He ignorantly declares that rather than finding transitional forms, we are finding animals that are all fully formed and products of God’s creativity.

Sorry, Gish. Even the most fully formed of animals are transitionals in one form or another. Just because an animal is fully formed doesn't mean it can't change and develop over a period of time. Even the most well developed and fully formed of animals change over time into another animal; seeing an animal changing into a different variety much different than its ancestor is the clearest example of an animal changing into another animal!

Even creationists themselves teach that animals change over time despite their oft-repeated claim that they don't. The difference is they're making it as if such changes are instantly fast like Pokèmon while ignoring the factual evidence pointing to the process being done over long periods of time.

And there you have it. Gish Garbage! Proving his hypocrisy and his outright denial of how did God created all life forms that lived in the past and the present. Gish just says that God created them all while being deliberately clueless to how He did it based on physical evidence.

Denial of Bird Ancestry

In DTTL on pages 48-49 and in DBD on pages 64-65, both entitled Ancestor of Birds? Gish stupidly asserts that dinosaurs, especially saurischian dinosaurs, did not evolve into birds because their "lizard" hip structure is totally different from the hip structure of birds. If so, then what do you call this on the right side of the photo?

The claim Gish made blatantly ignores certain saurischian dinosaurs like Deinonychus (above) that has a much different type of saurischian hip than what is seen on the likes of a large theropod skeleton, with the pubis tilting backwards and leaning on the ischium, making the hip look more ornithschian than saurischian.

And no competent scientist will ever believe that dinosaurs with ornithschian hips could possibly be the ancestors of birds. But that's what Gish is implying when he makes up that strawman claim about ornithschian dinosaurs being the ancestors of birds all while ignoring the true ancestors of birds made up of only maniraptorian dinosaurs such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor.

In this chapter, Gish blatantly denies the existence of feathered dinosaurs, stating that all dinosaurs had ordinary reptile skin, which is clearly all a blatant lie. The Yixian Formation in China since 1996 have yielded a large, massive treasure trove of dinosaur fossils with feathered imprints on them which included Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, Cauldipteryx, and Sinornithosaurus to name a few.

Here's a website that lists the dinosaurs discovered at this special site and the descriptions of them.

http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Form/Yixian.htm

Gish "Archie" Lie

The next chapter in the Gish Garbage book is entitled Archaeopteryx. In it, Gish claims that this Jurassic dinosaur is just a bird, not a dinosaur, not even a transitional form because to him it has feathers and looks very much like a bird. This is false and Gish knows it. Archaeopteryx is really a theropod closely related to Xiaotingia and Compsognathus. Many fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx have been known to be misidentified as Compsognathus because scientists have overlooked the faint feather imprints that are embedded in the fossils when first unearthed and studied. Archaeopteryx has feathers indeed, but it also has teeth in its jaws, a beakless mouth, 3 digit clawed fingers on each wing, a reptilian tail, saurischian hip, deinonychosaurid type feet], extra pairs of wings on its legs, and a very primitive wishbone. Even the skeleton will show you that this is a theropod dinosaur that lived 150 million years ago during the Jurassic Period in what is now Germany.

Then Gish gives out all sorts of descriptions on how feathers and a few other parts of a bird functions and how they were all a product of God’s design and not by random happenings and chance, which evolution speaks nothing of in reality. He flat out denies the existence of dino-bird transitional forms such as Eoalulavis for instance, and how did God really did design birds through physical evidence. Denying evidence for bird evolution and feathered dinosaurs and pretending to not exist is not going to make it all go away. But Gish doesn’t know better. Instead he just lives on and on in blind faith, denial, stupidity, and ignorance of physical evidence that clearly shows us that there are such things as feathered dinosaurs and that Archaeopteryx is in fact a dinosaur no different than Velociraptor and Troodon.

References,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/

http://birds.cornell.edu/

Pseudo-History of Dinosaurs

Unlike DTTL, DBD has four chapters on the pseudo-history of dinosaurs.

One is called Affects of Sin on page 68. This is where Gish states falsely that all animals were at peace with each other, eating plants until the Fall of Man, when some animals afterwords became predators and started preying on each other and thus becoming part of the Fallen World, while in fact it is only Adam, Eve, and the Snake (Satan in form of a snake) who were the ones responsible for bringing sin to the world; the Snake tempts Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. Eve ate the fruit and coaxed Adam to eat the fruit, which he did. This incident is responsible for bringing on the Fallen World made up of only those guilty of sin. The animal kingdom is innocent and had nothing to do with the crime.

If predatory animals are a part of the Fallen World, then why did God made some animals to eat meat? Why did God condone, even instigated predatory behavior if Gish thinks predatory behavior is evil and part of the Fallen World? If predation is evil and part of the fallen World, then so is God for He made some animals to eat meat and have a lot of times commanded predators (like lions) to kill humans as punishment for their sins.

Ignorance of The Lack Of Animal Morality

Gish then asserts that sin entered into the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience and because of this, both man and beast rebelled against God. Uh, Gish? How can the beasts be disobedient and rebellious towards God when they have don’t have even the slightest idea of what sin, evil, and rebellion is? Does this imply that animals all need a savior the same way mankind needs a Savior to save their souls from damnation, even though they lack the ability to reason and have morality? Or is this your way of distorting the story of Noah's Ark after being inspired by other religious resources than the Bible, like this one from the Book of Jubilees?

"And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth -all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men (was) thus evil continually. And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes. And He said that He would destroy man and all flesh upon the face of the earth which He had created."

The claim about God putting armor on dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Ankylosaurus because He [waving two fingers]knewtwo fingers they will have to use them in the "Post-Fall" era implies that God is nothing more than a cruel, barbaric god who have set all animals and people up for the Fall when He created them, leading also to the implications that God is a deceiver who uses trickery to create all things. If that isn't an example of blaspheming God's character, then I don't know what it is.

The real purpose of God flooding the earth is to punish mankind for their sins. It is really mankind, not animal kind that needs punishing. The animal kingdom, morally innocent they are, had nothing to do with it. Still, it must have broken His heart when he had to sacrificed the animal kingdom to do it like He said he will in Genesis 6:7. He will have to wipe out animals that seem to imitate man's wicked desires as told in The Jewish Encyclopedia article about the flood.

The sins of the “men of the generation of the Flood” are variously given. They were proud and therefore shameless, parading the earth in a state of absolute nudity. They were licentious and lascivious, so that even the animals followed their example.

To preserve the animal kingdom, God told Noah, a righteous man before Him, to build the ark that will save him, his family, and the animal kingdom from the flood. Noah obeys and builds the ark just as God commanded. Then God told Noah to put into the ark 2 of every kind of ritually unclean animal; both male and female, and 7 of every kind of animal that's ritually clean that is made up of a male and 6 females. Both clean and unclean animals is mentioned on the list animals in the dietary laws within the Law of Moses. However there is a verse before Genesis 7:2 that contradicts the verse and that is Genesis 6:19-20 where God told Noah to take up only two of every kind of animal on earth into the ark. You can see what I mean right here.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html

The So-Called Great Flood

On the next chapter on pages 70-73 in DBD called The Great Flood, Gish tells of his own fairy tale version of Noah's ark where he says that Noah took up non avian dinosaurs, other than birds, into the ark to be saved only to die in the Post-Flood world afterwords. These websites, however, do a great job giving out detail rebuttals of this pseudo version of the famous bible story.

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/common_sense/bible_science.html

Fundamentalists HATE Noah's Ark

I'd rather like the traditional story of Noah's ark better where Noah only took up modern animals into the ark that is in the shape of a boat with a house on top than the pseudo version creationists demands people to believe in and accept to be an actual historical event without question, featuring a box-like vessel with a one big door and 2 long rows of windows at the very middle top of it (which the Bible really says nothing about) and have dinosaurs and all other prehistoric animals and modern animals going up into the ark and be crowded in it to the point it will be too much for Noah and his family can handle.

On page 72, Gish gets with his own version of the gospel message which is faulty and flawed as it can get. Look here to see how faulty this gospel message really is.

Flood myths

Then comes the chapter on pages 74-75 called Flood Myths where Gish states that the stories shown here have all have something to do with Noah's Flood. But look in here on this web page and you will see that it is not so. There are a few countries in the world, Egypt for instance, that do not have a single flood story in all parts of their mythology.

References:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_mt_everest_and_cricket.htm

There's another website refuting the flood myth that you can visit here.

Gish's Empty Extinction "Theories"

Next came the chapter on page 76-77 called, What happened to the dinosaurs? where Gish gives out some outdated extinction theories which includes the theory about mammals bringing about the dinosaurs' demise, which there is no evidence for. He doesn't believe that either the meteorite that created the Chicxulub crater or the formation of the Deccan Traps were the one that killed the dinosaurs. Instead he just falsely states that most dinosaurs were all wiped out by Noah's Flood and all the rest that were in the ark, except for the alleged ones that lived recently in certain remote areas of the world, were all killed off by man and other "post-flood" extremes— an example of why it is useless to compare the Ark of Death, which leads the survivors of the Flood to death by Post-Flood extremes, with Jesus Christ whom creationists regards as "the Ark of Salvation" that saved Mankind from their sins so they can live forever in His presence.

He also asserts that there was a mythical vapor canopy that unified the climate all over the world with no rain and no rainbows occurring during the "pre-flood" era. Instead there was only mist that rose from the ground to water the land like in Genesis 2:6. But does he and other creationists know that mist is really a form of rain that does completely nothing to water certain types of plants that needs tons of water to survive? Does he and other YEEs ever know that you don't necessary need rain to create a rainbow? Just look at a large waterfall at a certain time of day when the sun is shining through it from behind you and you'll see what I'm talking about. Here is a wikipage that tells all about rainbows. It has spectacular photos showing waterfalls with rainbows appearing when the sun reflects on the misty particles coming from the waterfall. These photos are all taken on a clear sunny day. Thus, refuting the claim about the pre-Flood no rain = no rainbows fallacy.

If there was no rain back then, certain kinds of plants that need lots of rain and lots of water to live will never survive. Was there even waterfalls back then as shown on the wikipage if there was no rain occurring back then? Was the world a dry place like the desert if no rain occurred back then? If there was no rain back then, then the whole earth will be completely a dry desert wasteland with hardly anything in it to grow on. Plus, the whole wide world would have been inhospitable because the vapor canopy would have made the earth to be a literal third sun from the sun. Everyone will be burned to death and the all of the world’s water will be all totally evaporated to nothing and the whole world will be lifeless desolate world with no signs of life on it whatsoever.

Knowing this could pose major problems with the vapor canopy myth, creationists will often invoke useless, old, illogical, empty, groundless, "goddidit" excuses to try to explain how certain kinds of plants survive where there was no rain on earth back then and how coral, plants, and fresh and saltwater fish survive the flood, and how soil is kept from being washed away for Noah and his family to farm on. All while ignoring the fact that plants would all die if given too much water and no soil. The soil will all be washed away. Freshwater fish will all die in salt water and vice versa and coral, so delicately fragile, will be annihilated off the face of the earth if there ever was a global flood. Mist is a minor form of rain that won't bring any kind of help to plants of certain species that need tons and tons of water to survive. Where do they get this kind of an idea is found in Hebrews 11:7 where Noah by faith builds the ark because he was warned of an event never seen before. But what does that have to do with rain? Probably nothing. The world would be a total dry uninhabited place if there were indeed no rain on earth back then.

And for once AiG and CMI, the most active and ludicrous of the YEC group, is somewhat abandoning the No rain or rainbows myth and has included it in the list of arguments they think creationists should not use (AIG page here; CMI page here.), but use them anyway in one form or another knowing their complete lack of integrity and their backsliding tendencies.

Gish Gallop About Ice Age Fallacy

The Next Chapter on page 78-79 is called Ice Age where Gish claims the Ice Age occurred after the Great Flood. But since the Great Flood has been alleged to include a hot canopy, volcanic eruptions, and scalding gas, then there is without doubt NO WAY the Ice Age would have never occurred if the Worldwide Flood is true. See these links below clearly refutes the Ice Age claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH590.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_oard1.htm

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

Besides that, there were multiple ice ages that occurred thought earth's history and this link will take you to a web page that debunks the YEC one Ice Age myth.

http://www.answersincreation.org/iceage.htm

DTTL doesn't have all that. All it has is the chapter on pages 56-61 called Whatever became of the Dinosaurs? and that's it. But just like DBD, DTTL falsely states without evidence that dinosaurs were all killed in the Flood except for those in the ark that were all killed off afterwords by the cold and other "post-flood" extremes. And if God wanted animals rescued to be kept alive after the Flood, and yet die off anyway, them what's the point of rescuing them in the first place?

Comments