Talk:Duane Gish

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Gorman[edit]

This article should have some mention of when Dave Gorman met Gish during his GoogleWhack adventures. Anyone have a transcript? Crundy 09:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the book, if you can find a copy. Totnesmartin 20:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree that Gish's 'arguments' are totally unworthy of the title, 'arguments', if YOU want to be taken seriously, you have to work harder at restraining the inevitable impulse to scoff at him and his 'arguments'. "What the fuck"? is going too far. Much too far. I like the one about using his books for wobbly tables, though;) — Unsigned, by: 66.167.204.16 / talk / contribs

When it comes to fire-breathing dinosaurs, "what the fuck?" isn't really going too far. Subtle sarcasm is usually better than OMGWTF comments, but sometimes something is just so jaw-droppingly silly that it basically satirises itself. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nowt wrong with 'What the fuck', that's my sentiment exactly. Also, did his rug evolve, or was it created?--Scherben 12:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)scherben

Outcry edits[edit]

I think the reason your edits are being reverted is they are introducing a false balance into the article. Remember, unlike WP, this wiki is not interested in NPOV.Tielec01 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What the heck is a false balance about adding some real information about Dr. Gish and removing childish name calling and histrionics. Why not just make real arguments instead of saying nasty contentless stuff? There is plenty to complain about believe me. I'm a young earth creationist but I don't buy all the stuff the most popular apologists say. Let's work together to get these yec article more respectable. An outcry cometh (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
In addition, you used the word "evolutionist." See dog whistle and snarl word. "Let's work together" could be the language of a concern troll. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Duane Gish is a charlatan and a purveyor of half-truths and outright lies. If I had my way all this article would contain would be a picture of Gish with LYING CUNT written on his forehead. Acei9 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
When did we become ED? Did I miss something? Nobodydon't bother 06:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It's good to have you here outcry, but I think you should probably read the 'new to RationalWiki' article that Sam posted on your user page. Good luck!Tielec01 (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not into the names, but why should we be respectful of a position that says "all of science is just totally BS". I mean, i will be the first to say we should be careful with "guided evo", or "god of the gaps" cause real people really believe AND manage to have science. but if you are going to stand there and say teh earth is 6000 years old, we are going to laugh at you. (Gish, not Outcry).Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about Sprockets? "Evolutionist" is a word that the most prominent evolution proponents use to describe themselves. Do you want me to give you citations of Jerry Coyne, Eugenie Scott, and others using the term? Calling my edit concern troll is insulting. You don't know me. Can you all please just respond to the merits and make a real argument that relies on oh I don't know facts?! An outcry cometh (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"Evolutionist" is a way for creationists to cast evolution as a belief system. Some prominent "evolutionists" may have owned the term in a sort of détournement, but the word is still a red flag. More appropriate labels for "evolutionists" are biologists, paleontologists, embryologists, geneticists, and so on. If you wish to continue arguing that it is a valid, neutral term, you will meet silence on my part. Some arguments aren't worth having, and this is one of them. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Waiting, who said you have to be respectful? But why do you have to say hateful things? It is far more effective to simply debunk the nonsense than call someone a name and say nasty things. The hatefulness is content free nonsense. And Dr. Gish doesn't say all of science is just totally BS. He disagrees on a number of things and agrees on a number of things. Focus on what he doesn't agree with you on if your editorial position is dogmatic. An outcry cometh (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Outcry, please re-read the community standards and guide to what our articles are. We have a snarky point of view here, and humour is actually a good tihng. Planaria Icon.png Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster Talk to me or view my art 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah buddy they don't say what you think they say. Snarky point of view doesn't mean poorly researched and incendiary for the sake of being unpleasant. It's a way of presenting information. You must present information to be snarky or you're just being a clown. An outcry cometh (talk) 04:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Which peice is poorly researched. name calling, sure... but factually inaccurate?Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


It has been a string of reversing of my edit without a single explanation of what is wrong with adding information and toning down some unnecessary hateful talk. Would someone in charge please explain which parts of the edit aren't ok. Surely the whole thing can't be bad unless nobody wants to know about his impressive publishing records his academic degree and a few other things. An outcry cometh (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"impressive publishing records?" He's not published ONE THING in a peer reviewed journal. Are we talking about the same guy here?Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually he has.Nobodydon't bother 05:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
My bad, Ty. I should have said "in a field relevant to evolution". I.e., any where his ideas are being challenged. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

He has published dozens of papers in secular peer reviewed journals. That's more than one thing. An outcry cometh (talk)

No, I agree that he is a legitimate scientist. But as I just said, publishing something that says "Vinegar and Baking Soda mixture produces fizz" is completely different from one saying "Compound X is the link that proves Creationism." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Were he Albert Einstein, he'd still be an idiot for being a creationist. The man's a dishonest twonk! Scream!! (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fake death[edit]

I was in Los Angeles in January 1989 and read a letter from Gish in a newspaper. He basically said that if the Universe was originally hydrogen and helium, how come so many heavy elements now? A question that a 10 year old with an interest in astronomy could answer (fusion in stars, novae and supernovae). I sent him a letter showing where he was wrong and over the next several years sent him numerous letters proving him wrong. Around 1995 I got a letter "from a colleague" saying he was near death, so I stopped sending letters. Years later I found out this was another of his endless lies to stop me continually showing him up as a fraud.(2405:9800:BA00:451B:985B:E098:4C99:E4B6 (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC))