Re: An argument Jon Gary Williams should NOT use
- "Mathewmaury" wrote, in part:
> Todd's repeatedly uses a referenceI anticipate that Todd will clarify the issue raised by "Mathewmaury".
> 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.´
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 theI did not get the impression that AIG agreed with Todd on transitional
> young earth creationist group called
> Answers in Genesis has advised fellow
> young earth creationists against using
> this argument:
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.
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, "Mathew Maury" wrote (post #2974):
> --- Todd S. Greene wrote:Hi, Mat.
>> 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
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.
>AiG agrees with me that the argument "there are no transitional
> 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!!!
fossils" is an argument that creationists should not use.
>Well, in fact, this AiG statement is wrong. But what else is new?
> 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.'"