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

Re: An argument Jon Gary Williams should NOT use

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.