Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

An argument Jon Gary Williams should NOT use

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    Hi, everyone. At http://www.hattoncoc.org/bulletin48.html we see Church Of Christ member Jon Gary Williams claim that evolution does not fit the evidence. The
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 11, 2003
      Hi, everyone.

      At http://www.hattoncoc.org/bulletin48.html we see Church Of Christ
      member Jon Gary Williams claim that "evolution does not fit the
      evidence. The only place to go to find concrete, empirical evidence
      for evolution would be the fossil record. However, there is not a
      single case of a transitional form!"

      This argument is so bad that even the young earth creationist group
      called Answers in Genesis has advised fellow young earth creationists
      against using this argument:

      Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

      In a recent post to this discussion group I mentioned such examples
      of transitional fossils as *Acanthostega gunnari*, the reptile-to-
      mammal transition, and the transition from Hyracotherium to the modern
      horse.

      Re: Evolution - Just One Thing!
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/2530

      Here are several detailed discussions on the subject of transitional
      fossils:

      The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
      Mammal-Like Reptiles
      http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

      Horse Evolution
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

      A Critical Look at Creationist Paleontology
      http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm

      Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
      http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

      Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

      On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
      http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

      Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

      Re: New transitional fossil
      http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199807/0020.html

      Of course - never fear! - since young earth creationists possess an
      attitude of obstinately promoting error and have little respect for
      the truth, we should remain confident that they will continue to
      promote this wrong argument for at least another twenty years. This
      is not cynicism, but reality. Golly, we can't even get them to admit
      the trivial fact that Peter Frenzen did NOT say that the erosional
      gorge formed at Mt. St. Helens following its eruption was a hardrock
      canyon!

      Chuckling,
      Todd Greene
      http://www.creationism.cc/
    • rlbaty50
      ... It is, indeed, most fascinating that such a matter remains unresolved while Buff, the alleged reformer, has specific knowledge relative to his
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 12, 2003
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
        <greeneto@y...> wrote, in part:

        > (W)e can't even get them (i.e. Buff Scott, Jr., the
        > alleged reformer) to admit the trivial fact that Peter
        > Frenzen did NOT say that the erosional gorge formed at
        > Mt. St. Helens following its eruption was a hardrock
        > canyon!

        It is, indeed, most fascinating that such a matter remains unresolved
        while Buff, the alleged reformer, has specific knowledge relative to
        his misrepresentations of Peter Frenzen, the National Geographic, and
        Loowitt Falls Canyon on Mt. St. Helens.

        I just checked again. YES, here it is December 12, 2003 and the
        following is still up on Buff's website:

        > http://www.mindspring.com/~renewal/Canyon.html

        > Mount St. Helens vs. The Grand Canyon

        > Mount St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980.

        > Some years later, a monument scientist (Peter Frenzen)
        > examined the hardrock canyon, created by the eruption,
        > and remarked,

        > > "You'd expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even
        > > hundreds of thousands of years old. But this one was
        > > cut in less than a decade."
        > > (National Geographic, May, 2000).

        > Rick Presley, a knowledgeable student of geology, says,
        > "Pretty convincing evidence that the Grand Canyon didn't
        > take millions of years to form. If you can research it out,
        > Mount St. Helens has proven to be a huge geologic laboratory
        > that has overturned a great many uniformitarian assumptions."

        Does anybody know anything about what Buff is up to regarding that
        matter. Is it true he's pulling a "Bert" on us and is just going to
        leave what he knows is erroneous on his website? From what I have
        observed Buff has pretty much gone into hiding regarding the matter
        and his supporters have very effectively circled the wagons around
        his hideout(s).

        Considering Buff's competition with Bert, I guess this will put him
        right up there in Bert's league concerning such things. What stellar
        examples (Buff & Bert) that the critics of "young-earth, creation-
        science" are quite right when it comes to some of the men pushing
        that hobby.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      • Todd S. Greene
        Hi, everyone. I submitted an edited version of my post #16061 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/16061 to the guestbook at the Hatton Church Of
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 12, 2003
          Hi, everyone.

          I submitted an edited version of my post #16061

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/message/16061

          to the guestbook at the Hatton Church Of Christ website (
          http://www.hattoncoc.org/bulletin48.html ). Upon submission, I get
          the message "Your entry has been recorded. Your entry won't be listed
          until the site owner has approved it." It will be interesting to see
          if the site owner has the integrity to present the criticism of the
          erroneous article by Jon Gary Williams.

          Regards,
          Todd Greene
          http://www.creationism.cc/
        • mathewmaury
          ... Todd s repeatedly uses a reference to Answers in Genesis to back his claim that transitional fossils exist. The citation was given (but not quoted) located
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 14, 2003
            --- Todd S. Greene wrote:
            > Jon Gary Williams claim that "evolution does not fit the
            > evidence. The only place to go to find concrete, empirical
            > evidence for evolution would be the fossil record. However,
            > there is not a single case of a transitional form!"
            >
            > This argument is so bad that even the young earth
            > creationist group called Answers in Genesis has advised
            > fellow young earth creationists against using this argument

            Todd's repeatedly uses a reference to Answers in Genesis to
            back his claim that transitional fossils exist.

            The citation was given (but not quoted) located at
            http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

            Curious to see why AIG would agree with Todd, I looked up
            the reference and found that AIG does NOT agree with Todd!
            AIG does NOT believe there are valid transitional fossils!!!

            What does AIG actually say about about not using the
            argument that `There are no transitional forms'? Reproduced
            below is the real response from AIG using Todd's reference:

            Since there are candidates, even though they are highly
            dubious, it's better to avoid possible comebacks by saying
            instead: `While Darwin predicted that the fossil record
            would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years
            later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.'
          • rlbaty@webtv.net
            ... I anticipate that Todd will clarify the issue raised by Mathewmaury . Methinks Mathewmaury has misrepresented the point Todd was making and the point of
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 14, 2003
              "Mathewmaury" wrote, in part:

              > Todd's repeatedly uses a reference
              > to Answers in Genesis to back his
              > claim that transitional fossils exist.

              > Curious to see why AIG would agree
              > with Todd, I looked up the reference
              > and found that AIG does NOT agree
              > with Todd!

              > Reproduced below is the real response
              > from AIG using Todd´s reference:

              > > Since there are candidates, even
              > > though they are highly dubious, it's
              > > better to avoid possible comebacks
              > > by saying instead: `While Darwin
              > > predicted that the fossil record would
              > > show numerous transitional fossils,
              > > even 140 years later, all we have are
              > > a handful of disputable examples.´

              I anticipate that Todd will clarify the issue raised by "Mathewmaury".
              Methinks "Mathewmaury" has misrepresented the point Todd was making and
              the point of agreement/disagreement.

              I found where Todd, in referencing the "transitional fossil" issue,
              wrote, in part:

              > This argument is so bad that even the
              > young earth creationist group called
              > Answers in Genesis has advised fellow
              > young earth creationists against using
              > this argument:

              I did not get the impression that AIG agreed with Todd on transitional
              fossils. I got the impression that AIG agreed with Todd, that the
              argument might best be avoided.

              I see an important difference as to whether Todd was claiming AIG was in
              agreement with him on transitional fossils or simply agreed with him, to
              the extent indicated, that the transitional fossil argument may not be
              any better than the moon dust argument of Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty
            • Todd S. Greene
              ... Hi, Mat. I have not referred to AiG s comment as backing up the fact that transitional fossils exist. I have referred to their comment and stated that they
              Message 6 of 6 , Dec 14, 2003
                --- In Maury_and_Baty, "Mathew Maury" wrote (post #2974):
                > --- Todd S. Greene wrote:
                >> Jon Gary Williams claim that "evolution does not fit the
                >> evidence. The only place to go to find concrete, empirical
                >> evidence for evolution would be the fossil record. However,
                >> there is not a single case of a transitional form!"
                >>
                >> This argument is so bad that even the young earth
                >> creationist group called Answers in Genesis has advised
                >> fellow young earth creationists against using this argument
                >
                > Todd repeatedly uses a reference to Answers in Genesis to
                > back his claim that transitional fossils exist.
                >
                > The citation was given (but not quoted) located at
                > http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

                Hi, Mat.

                I have not referred to AiG's comment as backing up the fact that
                transitional fossils exist. I have referred to their comment and
                stated that they recognize that the argument "there are no
                transitional fossils" is an argument that creationists should not
                use. In regard to backing up the fact that transitional fossils exist
                I have provided several online references that everyone can look at
                for themselves. I note here that you quite ignored those and then
                misrepresented my reference to AiG's comment.

                >
                > Curious to see why AIG would agree with Todd, I looked up
                > the reference and found that AIG does NOT agree with Todd!
                > AIG does NOT believe there are valid transitional fossils!!!

                AiG agrees with me that the argument "there are no transitional
                fossils" is an argument that creationists should not use.

                >
                > What does AIG actually say about about not using the
                > argument that 'There are no transitional forms'? Reproduced
                > below is the real response from AIG using Todd's reference:
                >
                > "Since there are candidates, even though they are highly
                > dubious, it's better to avoid possible comebacks by saying
                > instead: 'While Darwin predicted that the fossil record
                > would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years
                > later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.'"

                Well, in fact, this AiG statement is wrong. But what else is new?

                Chuckling,
                Todd Greene
                http://www.creationism.cc/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.