'Interesting to note the undoing of the case for the alleged missing link "Tiktaalik" through the finding of tetrapod footprints dated some '18 million years'* prior to the alleged existence of "Tiktaalik ." See http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/archives/193
This undoing has received nothing near the publicity of the orchestrated announcement of the discovery of the "Tiktaalik" fossil. Why?
May I suggest that it makes many proponents of the paradigm of evolution somewhat red-faced. One notable atheist, Richard Dawkins, went so far as to include "Tiktaalik" in his recent book "The Greatest Show on Earth" with the comment "the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian, and perfect because it is missing no longer."
Once again, Richard Dawkins has been left exposed as lacking evidence for his views on the origin of life. No wonder the atheists conducting a conference in Melbourne, Australia in March, this year, are fearful of a debate between a Biblical Creationist and their 'great high priest.'
This sort of information is seldom known by Sydney Episcopalians who have adopted Theistic Evolution as their defence position. They only read the announcements promoting the original 'find' which they believe affirms their (false) doctrine. They thus know nothing of the later unravelling of the alleged 'find.' In doing this they show their preparedness to "run with the hounds" instead of the Word of God.
* We do not accept as reliable the assumptions which undergird the dating of rocks in much of science today. We would therefore dispute the dates assigned to the alleged "missing link" and the "earlier" tetrapod footprints. What we note here is the undoing of the original claims about "Tiktaalik" through the proponents own dating method.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
So dating methods are reliable in every case except this one? You say none of the dating methods can be used.... except this one?
PZ Myers can give you an explanation of why this doesn't "demolish" evolution by the way. Again. Try google.
BTW... "Alledged existence" of Tiktaalik? Are fossils not proof of the existence of a past lifeform any more?
If Healy Hatman is determined to superimpose his thoughts over what I wrote and neglect what I actually said I am not prepared to waste my time responding to his charges.
Grow up kid!
Sam Drucker
Yep, nothing changes, especially Healy's self-imposed inability to actually understand a creationist argument.
And merely stating that Myers can give an explanation isn't an argument but an argument from authority.
BTW, any argument is not proof that your opponent's argument is false.
Man, I don't know what they taught you at uni Healy but apparently it's very little. Go on boy, get sum ejacashun inya!
Post a Comment