Excuse me? The discussion was about the article, yes? The ridiculous, false, incredibly stupid article making Bull**** claims on behalf of scripture?
You **wish** it was about whether every aspect of evolutionary theory meets a narrow criteria of "well established". Unfortunately, the author wasn't as skilled as Gish at unmitigated bull**** and specious logic, so the discussion gets to be about what creationists actually believe.
The discussion, as it had evolved to the point at which you responded to my post, was not about the article per se, but the feasibility of evolutionary theory, that of abiogenesis in particular, or at least that's how I interpreted the direction to be.
However, your statement about Gish does bring us back to the very valid point (to which you never responded) that Gish did seem to always manage to run circles around evolutionist professors of biology and geology. Pretty good for a "bull**** artist", I'd say.