1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by BobRyan, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k94.htm

    "We're often pointed to the blood serum similarities between the chimpanzee and the human... But if we compare milk chemistry instead of blood serum, it's not the chimpanzee that's the closest [to human's]... it's the donkey that has milk chemistry almost exactly like mother's milk... "

    Another distortion.

    If you look at human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes you will find that they are identical. If you want to look at some other chemicals, I could not find comparisons for whey and casein with chimps but for monkeys the monkey's chemistry is much closer to humans than donkey's.
     
  2. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/k94.htm

    "We see distinct similarity with the garter snake [relative to cholesterol]... "

    This is a meaningless comparison. (They are talking about levels since cholesterol is a simple molecule and should not vary.) The levels of cholesterol vary widely between individual members of a species (What's you level, mine about 190). So this cannot be used to compare. Doesn't stop them from trying...

    And from the same source.

    "When it comes to blood antigen A... the butterbean [is most similar to humans]... "

    I did not know that butterbeans have blood. Hmmm. Anybody see a problem here?

    Now butterbeans do make a glycoprotein that is similar enough to blood antigen A that it can produce an antibody reaction. But the various blood antigens of chimps are all either identical or nearly identical to that of humans.

    More "junk" trying to support a young earth.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.creationscience.com/

    "One computer-based study, using cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. If evolution happened, this study should have found that, for example, the rattlesnake was most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, based on this one protein, the rattlesnake was most similar to man. Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions."

    As we have seen, chimp cyctochrome C is identical to human so the rattlesnake cannot be closer. For copmarison, here is the rattlesnake sequence to compare with that above.

    gdvekgkkif smkcgtchtv eeggkhktgp nlhglfgrkt gqavgysyta anknkgiiwg ddtlmeylen pkkyipgtkm vftglkskke rtdliaylke atak

    And human again:

    mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne

    More "junk" statements and flat out lies for a young earth.
     
  4. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is enough for now. It is fairly easy to predict that Bob, nor other YEers, will be able to shed additional light on all these examples of YE dishonesty as wa easily done for Bob's supposed problems. What Bob listed was easy to dismiss simply by filling in the context and showing that he was not giving an honest treatment of the words ofthe scientists.

    On the other hand, by the examples I have listed here, you should be able to see that he comes about his mistakes honestly. What I mean by that is that you can now see that the leaders of the YE movement make a habit of using misrepresentation, half-truths and untruths to try and build a case. Bob is merely emulating those in positions of leadership.

    And that is the problem with the YE movement. So much of it is built on such un-Christian behavior. People on the outside see it and get a false image of Christians. They think that Christianity must be false if all these guys must lie to try and support it. Second of all the influence of these leaders has the results that you see where otherwise good Christians feel that it is OK to adopt such tactics if they think they are doing God's work. Well God does not need us to be dishonest to spread His message to the world.

    Let me know if you desire more examples.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Oh brother did you ever just give a bad quote of Simpson or what?!!

    Your bad quote of the CONTINUOUS line of evolution is EXACTLY what was debunked!

    Did you not pay attention to the details? Again?

    Here let me set you straight using Simpsons OWN words regarding supposedly CONTINOUS lines of evolution - you know - the one PROPOSED for the HORSE series!! (See the pictures? See the series? See the continuous line? Yet?)

    The ORIGIN is in fact "speculative and much debated" when you trie to trump up something like the horse series and show ancestor-ancestor sequences from the modern horse.

    (or the modern Bird. Or Archaeopteryx. Get it? Yet?)

    Indeed - as already pointed out - "details are never the friend of wild evolutionist speculation".

    Notice that the sequence of ancestors was wrong - in fact - SUCH a continuous sequence is denied by all evolutionsts today promoting phyletic evolution.

    That means - GOODBYE horsey!

    What???

    You can't possibly mean to "pretend" not to get the point AGAIN??!!

    Notice that in the bushy phyletic model YOU HAVE NO SUCH SERIES as the horse series showing a continuous line of ancestor-ancestor-ancestor.

    Get IT?? Yet??

    Please explain how you can keep making those blunders.

    In the bush model - you ONLY get the leaf node and at most one ancestor back. Then you hit a brick wall. (OF course I would love to see even ONE valid example of even SUCH a modest traversal - even one node up the tree).

    But the horse SERIES claims to have 30!!

    NO SUCH CONTINUOUS LINE!

    Get it??

    Again you pretend not to know what you are talking about.

    The bush model that debunks the LINE model does so by REJECTING the very 30-horse CONTINUOUS LINE presented in the horse series.

    Get it??

    Yet??

    As for your botched up re-invention of Eldredge...

    Dead wrong!

    Eldredge was NOT arguing for an EVEN LONGER CONTINUOUS LINE like the EXISTING CONTINUOUS line of ancestors shown in the horse series!!

    Get it?


    From these quotes we discover that EVEN among evolutionism’s faithful the certainty of grandiose claims for change – becomes LESS true over time as Real science confronts junk-science speculation with “details” replacing guesswork with some “fact”.

    Raup argues that INSTEAD of a 30 horse CONTINUOUS SEQUENCE (simple progression) of CHANGES - we have to DISCARD the horse series as Raup notes.

    He even goes on to say Darwin's "PROBLEM IS NOT ALEVIATED" in fact we have FEWER examples now than DARWIN THOUGHT he had.

    How can that be? Because FACTS are never the friend of evolutionism!

    Get it?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Nope. Really Bob, I have asked you to support this claim, also. Is this going to become a parallel of the "true bird" claims? There is overlap between many of the individual genera. Of which there are something like 50. But you cannot support the assertion that the earlist genera are found alongside the latest.
    </font>[/QUOTE]In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says:
    Enjoy!

    FActs are not the friend of evolutionism - it survives only as it finds one factless void after another to escape the light of day.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

    I suppose it does but I don't have a problem with that, do you?
     
  8. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am assuming that your silence on all the examples of fictional junk put out in the name of YE means that you agree that it is all lies, too.

    "Oh brother did you ever just give a bad quote of Simpson or what?!!

    Your bad quote of the CONTINUOUS line of evolution is EXACTLY what was debunked!

    Did you not pay attention to the details? Again?
    "

    No, Bob, for you see, my quote of Simpson is in line with what he was saying in the broader quote. You could not possibly go back and make a case that Simpson meant something other than what I was claiming he said. When you quote him, that is not so much true.

    You then have your quote beginning ""This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . ." You say this is at odds with the claims of the horse series. Prove it! As has been pointed out to you, these are talking about two different things. The horse series is known down to the detailed level of individual genera and species. This is a far cry from the level of order. All of the horses are of the order Perissodactyla, the odd toed ungulates.

    The quote is talked about puncuated equilibrium and how often big jumps occur in geologically short periods of time. Often shoort enough for the fossil record to only capture the period of stasis on either end. This is not the case with the horses.

    The other key thing to note is that your quote is from 1944!!! We have dug up quite a few fossils since then. Since we are talking about horses, let's look at the appearance of the order Perissodactyla. You will find that it is better known now than it was sixty years ago. We can trace the origin of Perissodactyla through such creatures as Loxolophus, Tetraclaenodon, and Radinskya. MAybe you should check to see if we have learned anything new in the intervening years before you pull out such an ancient quote.

    "Indeed - as already pointed out - "details are never the friend of wild evolutionist speculation".

    Notice that the sequence of ancestors was wrong - in fact - SUCH a continuous sequence is denied by all evolutionsts today promoting phyletic evolution.

    That means - GOODBYE horsey!
    "

    Nope, wrong again. This only means that the series was less complete in the past than it was later after additional specimens were found.

    Let's give an anology. Let's say you know nothing of English or its alphabet. I take the letter of the alphabet and put them in a sand box and tell you to dig. After a few minutes you have an A an H an N and a Z so you put them in the order "A H N Z." It that wrong? As time goes by, you find more and more of the letters. Let's say at a nother point in time you have 20 of the letters. You are able to fill in many of the gaps between the other letters. Does this mean that the prevous ordering was wrong? Not really, it was just incomplete. Even the twenty letter ordering is still in complete but it is more correct. When you find the 21st letter and put it in place, you will have a better series then you did before but it does not make it wrong.

    So it is with the horse series. The ideas about it when only a few specimens were known was correct as far as they could go but it was very incomplete. We now know the series much more completely. We did not have to throw out any finds as not really being horses. We did not have to radically change the order. We just filled in the gaps and got a more complete picture.

    "Notice that in the bushy phyletic model YOU HAVE NO SUCH SERIES as the horse series showing a continuous line of ancestor-ancestor-ancestor."

    We have a very detailed set of genera and species with many side branches and dead ends. It is possible to pull out the ones most likely on the path and make a continuous (though not steady or smooth) series if you wish with a reasonable amount of certainty. But the whole point of all these guys you have been quoting is that such thinking is lacking. You need to look at the complete picture with all the bushines intact. To not do so gives a distorted view of what happened.

    As for your next quote, you left the name off. It is Gould I believe. If this is supposed to be against the fossil record the nwhy did he also say
    That was also from Natural History.

    I think your tactics may be the kind he is "infuriat[ed]" by.

    "Dead wrong!

    Eldredge was NOT arguing for an EVEN LONGER CONTINUOUS LINE like the EXISTING CONTINUOUS line of ancestors shown in the horse series!!
    "

    Huh? You offer no support for this assertion. He lamenting the simple progression still being presented when a much more complete picture was known at the time.

    Then you quote Raup again. Did you even read your own quote?!? "What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

    "In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    I would suggest that you go look up some of the details of what we know before you embarass yourself with such claims. Pliohippus was no "early horse." Equus is the modern horse genus. The genus before was Dinohippus. Pliohippus was a side branch that came about at roughly the same time as Dinohippus. It would not be surprising to find all three of these in the same location. You really ought to read a little more closely.

    " "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?"

    I am guessing that is supposed to be a quote and a comment. I actually think that you have plagarized both from somewhere else. You didn't go through copying word for word without at least giving a link to where you copied from, did you? You are not adding plagerism to misquoting as a tactic are you?

    Anyhow, just like in the Pliohippus claim above, you would expect to find many species living together and even some overlap in genera. Have you not learned anything from all you quotes so far? The evolution is not a simple progression of one to another to another. It is complex. Bushy. Jerky.
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Errr - ummm ... no!

    See the National Geog article reference and UTEOTW's wild claim that such things can't be found on earth.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    hmm. You "assume" you say?

    I recognize your need to misdirect away from the Horse series subject of the opening post - given the embarrassment this presents for the "discarded horse series" as Raup seems to view it.

    So don't think I don't understand your dilemma.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "See the National Geog article reference and UTEOTW's wild claim that such things can't be found on earth."

    Did you read my response above? I claimed that you could not find genera from the far ends of the series at the same place. I even said that you should expect overlap in the genera that are close to one another in time. You National Geographic example is just that. One genus still on the scene with a genus from the next "generation."

    You make some wild claims, there.

    "I recognize your need to misdirect away from the Horse series subject of the opening post - given the embarrassment this presents for the "discarded horse series" as Raup seems to view it."

    Did you read your Raup quote? It gives you your answer. "What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

    No, no. My goal was to show that your examples of fiction are, well, fictional. They are not fiction but examples of you twisting things out of context. There is no defence to be made for the things I labeled as fiction from your side.

    It draws a nice contrast. You making things up and calling them problems while I can give you links right to whole pages of the YEers stepping in holes of their own digging.
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    So is mine. AND of Raup AND of Elderidge AND of Gould.

    When an evolutionist is confronted with an inconvenient fact - they seem to want to practice "revisionist history" to make it "go away".

    The statements REMAIN - even though you don't like them and EVEN though they SHOW the self-conflicted nature of atheist evolutionists that sometimes ADMIT to the facts of GOOD science while still clinging religiously to their junk science myths.

    This just isn't that hard.

    So when we SEE these Atheist Evolutionists ICONS of yours admitting to the blunders, gaffs and flaws WHILE clinging desperately to the Atheist's ONLY hope and faith in origins - we still SEE!!

    (Though evolutionists like yourself like to pretend we would be prone to revisionism as you are in the case of those quotes).

    You haul up quotes you would RATHER think about -- but they only show the self-conflicted corrupt nature of evolutionism as its followers sometimes admit to GOOD SCIENCE while deovtedly clinging to evolutionism "anyway".


    This just isn't that hard to see.

    Your continual game of "pretending" not to underestand this is humorous and entertaining - but it does not serve your argument.

    Try making a compelling point.


    Actually you have shown yourself to be completely incapable of reviewing the facts in the case of those quotes. You simple latch on to SOME OTHER statement AS IF that voids the previous one - when in fact it only shows the self-conflicted nature of the junk-science we know today as the religion of "evolutionism".

    Let us demonstrate.

    Well.... lets actually LOOK at the details of the quote instead of "pretending" we don't understand it - ok?

    Notice your abuse of the quotes I provide showing what you "wish" were true - but is not.

    What we find is that IN THE CASE OF the horse series IT IS DISCARDED for the VERY reason that it is NOT an exception AND the result is - FACTS have been continually UNDOING even the modest ground claimed by DARWIN at the very start.

    INSTEAD of IMPROVING the case for these links - it is wiping out the ones you "thought" you had at the start.

    Lets "see" the details.

    FACTS that can't be deleted by your attempts at revisionism.

    #1. FEWER remaining examples of transitions TODAY than in Darwin's day.

    #2. Data ONLY at the tips and NODES.

    #3. THE REST is merely INFERENCE - NOT fact.

    #4. Represents a CONFLICT between what Darwinism NEEDS and what Paleontology SHOWS.

    Impossible to "ignore these inconvenient details".

    From these quotes we discover that EVEN among evolutionism’s faithful the certainty of grandiose claims for change – becomes LESS true over time as Real science confronts junk-science speculation with “details” replacing guesswork with some “fact”.
    Note that instead OF PRESERVING the discredited horse series - the author states that the "facts" are causing them to DISCARD the discredited horse series.

    Could this BE any easier??

    As I said - I only quote atheist evolutionist ICONS when the case for evolutionism is so weak that even THEY admit to the salient points of creationism while they still CLING to atheism and its religion of origins the junk-science faith we know today as evolutionism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Here is a statement in the intervening years SINCE the corrupt discredited "discarded" horse series was foisted unto the public by evolutionism's devotees.

    Facts from the quote.

    #1. The series SHOWED origins and ancestor lines that are "ALL WRONG"

    #2. NO continuous - straight line evolution can be shown from the fossil record for horses THOUGH it is shown In the fabricated SERIES.

    #3. BEFORE this "ALL WRONG" conclusion was reached - the failed, flawed, discredited, now-discarded horse series "WAS PUBLISHED" and the author states "that was unfortunate".

    What is MORE unfortunate is the desperate attempts of evolutionism's devotees to "prop up the horse series ANYWAY" - eh?

    I am sure you will agree.

    "Indeed - as already pointed out - "details are never the friend of wild evolutionist speculation".

    Indeed - in fact this is why the SERIES that DOES show that VERY Sequence is "discarded" as the author points out.

    It could not BE any easier to see why this PERFECT EXAMPLE of evolution in action - is in fact the PERFECT example of FACT causing an embarrassment for evolutionists to the point that they must DISCARD the foisted fraud.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The problems identified -

    #1. Wild imaginings of creative evolutionists gets accepted "as if they are true" in fact they are merely "stories". The horse series is a good example of such a practice. It SHOWS us a SERIES that "NEVER HAPPENED"

    But does that mean that these atheist evolutionists have given up their faith in evolutionism? NO - NEVER! IT is the ONLY religion availbe to the atheist!

    Does that mean these devoted atheists "imagine" that NO ancestor - DIRECT straightline EXISTS for the modern horse? NO - by faith they KNOW that such an ancestor - a straightline immediate ancestor MUST exist and by faith WILL be found.

    So UTEOTW will now come back with but atheists are STILL atheist in spite of this problem with eovlutionism so it MUST NOT really be a problem

    (or something like that)

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Actually you have shown yourself to be completely incapable of reviewing the facts in the case of those quotes. You simple latch on to SOME OTHER statement AS IF that voids the previous one - when in fact it only shows the self-conflicted nature of the junk-science we know today as the religion of "evolutionism"."

    Uh. no. That is one continuous Simpson quote. The full quote shows that you changed the meaning by your selective editting.

    "Well.... lets actually LOOK at the details of the quote instead of "pretending" we don't understand it - ok?"

    Well, I did. I showed that your Simpson quote is not what you make it out to be. The sentences immediately following the part you where say the horse series does not exist, he goes on to talk about trends in horse evolution and calls the horse series a "classic" case of evolution.

    I then went on to show you that in the intervening 60 years since you quote about the various orders seeming to just appear that we have found some of the creatures that lead to the order to which horses belong.

    YOu misquote Gould again when he has to say about such things "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

    "Note that instead OF PRESERVING the discredited horse series - the author states that the "facts" are causing them to DISCARD the discredited horse series."

    Nope. He says "What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic." What is exactly what I have been telling you.

    Since I complained about a sixty year old quote, you seem to think that a 44 year old one should be much better. Unfortunately, you do not appear to have read it. It says "As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all." Again, exactly what I have been telling you.
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    The SImpson quote again? AAAAUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH.

    After the part you quote, Simpson goes on to talk about trends in the evolution of the horse and concludes that the horse sequence is a "classic" example of evolution in action. He is only saying the simple A to B to C progression was incomplete.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Tell me something - do you see the "many storied" flaws of evolutionism highlighted here?

    Not to suggest that the many-storied tactics of evolutionism are JUST confined to the discredited discarded Horse Series. We find another point on “stories told by Evolutionists”
    What does the word "story" mean to you?

    Do you "See yourself" telling these stories?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again you go through the false quotes. You have been shown the truth many times and yet you choose to perpetuate lies. Eldredge says that is lamentable to present the old outdated version of the horse series. Simpson talks in the sentences immediately following your quote about trends and horse evolution and concludes that the horse series is a "classic: example of evolution in action. Patterson is merely saying that you cannot know ancestor / descendent relationships for sure.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I have agreed readily that the "discarded story" of the horse series ("discarded" is not my term) is the perfect and best example of evolulutionism in action.

    I also agree that Simpson REMAINS an evolutionist.

    Here is another phrase you may want to investigate "ALL WRONG".

    Did you find it in the text above?

    Were you able to show how the ALL WRONG and DISCARDED Horse Series is really "the best" that evolutionism has to offer?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So now you dig up a new fifty year old quote about how the old, gradual horse series was replaced by a bushy and jerky series as the data became more complete.

    Quotes that don't even mean what you tell us. Is that all you have!?! Is YE reduced to just misquoting others?!? Is that the best they can come up with?

    No wonder YE has no respect! Is is based on a bed of shifting sand.
     
Loading...