Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate [Part 13 of 16]

[Johanvanwyk1231]

I think this debate proves the fact that if an evolutionist cannot win intellectually he has to fill the gaps caustic remarks.

[Gorteenminogue]

@Johanvanwyk1231 I think that this debate proves that there is no point in debating people ho hold ridiculous ideas. So, no debates with creationists, astrologers, astral projectionists, flat earthers etc.

[smitty0521]

I think that Gish presented very meaningful, well thought out evidence deserving of much scrutiny. Ridicule has no place in a scientific debate.

Plimer on the other hand spent all of his time debating against the Bible and making attacks against creationists that I cannot think of a single argument that he made against actual creationism.

[5tonyvvvv]

@smitty0521 GISH is a legend...We only see left handed amino acids when proteins are present..but proteins only form when u have LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS!!..Paradox....so how can life happen through a evolution process from simple chemicals and molecules, impossible.now science says crystals brought life here.thats not a testable science its a faith based assumption..all man can do is play with life and take pre existing information and rearranged it

[BigLundi]

@smitty0521 Quite possibly because he's doing the exact thing Grish did, just more aggressively. Grish didn't GIVE any evidence towards creationism, he just said Evolution's full of shit, without addressing all the things Evolution has on its side. So Plimer(though I agree he's a douchebag) simply did the same thing about creationism.

[Bertrandization]

Gish: "I can't see why we can't have a reasonable discussion..."

This is one of those arguments where you are just so totally all kinds of wrong it is difficult to choose which wrongness to point out to you.

What is explained to you, you appear incapable of comprehending anyway.

Your ideas are so self-evidently wrong they do not deserve scrutiny, but ridicule.

That is why.