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

Re: An argument Jon Gary Williams should NOT use

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Dec 14, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      "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 2 of 6 , Dec 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- 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.