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.
> Pretty good for a "bull**** artist", I'd say.
I would drop the "for a", but at least it appears we can agree on that.
We can also agree that none of the current hypotheses put forth regarding abiogenesis are "well established" observations.
We might even agree that common descent, while clearly and far and away the best going explanation for the diversity of life, isn't in the same class as the age of the earth, or the non-existence of the Noachian deluge as far as well established observations go.
> 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,...
I interpreted it to be: at what point does an observation become well established enough that relying on literal interpretations of mystical books of bed time stories for bronze age goat herders over them constitutes psychosis?
I think it's clear that many creationists are well past that tipping point.