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!

Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

Discussion in 'Science' started by BobRyan, Feb 6, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 6 of 10
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Wrong "again".

    According to "good science" - if one EVER has a hypothesis they must ADMIT IT!!

    IF one ever discovers data in nature - in the fossil record and is "tempted to ARRANGE IT to FIT their hypothesis" they should REFRAIN from that kind of fraud - for it only fits the pseudoscience of atheist darwinist evolutionism. It is NOT good science.

    What they would do in ACTUAL science in that case is present their hypothesis - ADMIT that the fossils they found WERE NOT found in layers SHOWING parent child relationships in the same hierarchy and then say that they "HOPE" one day to FIND a sequence In THE FOSSIL record that "would look like THIS". At that point they could freely ARRANGE the fossils having CONFESSED that the ARRANGEMENT is just that - and that it merely depicts the sequence they actually hope to FIND IN the fossil record one day!!

    How VASTLY DIFFERENT that form of REAL science is from the "lamentable fraud" that "never happened in nature" and yet was "presented as though it were DISCOVERED fact"!

    Notice your efforts to smear all of "good science" when you see the FRAUDS of your own pseudoscience being exposed --

    What a warped lense you use when you try to see "truth" through the fraudulent LENSE of the debunked horse series!

    Given even that much rope - you easily hung yourself!

    you have SHOWN that you still embrace the fraudulent methods of the debunked horse sequence - "as predicted"

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #101 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    lets start with the oft-repeated and painfully obvious FIRST -

    #1. The smooth transitional sequence they CLAIMED to have DISCOVERED - did not happen in nature at all. They simply took existing specimens and ARRANGED THEM to "fit the story"!

    #2. They PRESENTED MERE STORY as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT" in the fossil record - presenting parent-child SEQUENCES that were not valid! They presented specimens that did not show the link in the fossil record that they "needed" so they simply ARRANGED them to show what they needed.

    #3. They ARRANGE the fossils showing smooth transitional sequences - with smooth contiguous size and shape changes SHOWN specimen by specimen starting with the very earliest sequences! They created arrangements - rather than discovering the sequence IN the fossil record!!

    But of course - all this fraud probably looks like "good ol science" to someone married to atheist darwinist views of science. It does not surprise me that all this seems like "good stuff" to you.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #102 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Lets see HOW the bogus fraud "presented as THOUGH it were DISCOVERED FACT" was accepted by atheist Darwinist evolutionists!!

    The WILD, Classic, Traditional (Darwinian) claim for Horse evolution:

    notice the claim is that the DATA discovered SHOWS the confirmation of the expected result from the now discredited theory --

    Moving up the stratigraphic column, fossils reveal a main line of evolution progressing continuously from Eohippus [hyracotherium] to Equus [/
     
    #103 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

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

    The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
    G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hard to miss the CLAIM from "Horses -- the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.
     
    #104 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    But it is precisely the "discovered data" that shows that the FRAUD "never happened in nature" --

    Their fraudulent "arranging of the data" was a problem with data going all the way back to Darwin --

    Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.
    ________________________________________
     
    #105 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
     
    #106 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This last quote shows that the fraud they were presenting in the form of the horse series with "findings in nature ARRANGED to fit the story they wanted to tell" - is in fact S.O.P in the Pseudoscience religion we know today as atheist darwinist evolutionism!!

     
    #107 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  8. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK I'll try to explain again for the fifth time

    "All wrong" isn't an accurate representation of the so-called "problem". All that happened was there were so many candidates for the line of fossils that one couldn't be sure which was in the direct line and which was only a side line.

    How many times do I have to say that before you understand? Oh - I think I already know the answer never mind.

    By the way, its amazing how much nonsense one can get you to post with just a few economical lines of common sense. I'm quite content that the fence sitters are able to see through your highly selective out of date quote technique.
     
    #108 Paul of Eugene, Feb 22, 2006
  9. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    All I asked was a simple question. I wanted you to tell me exactly what was fraudulent and how you know it to be so. I still seem to be unable to get a straight and clear answer from you.

    Perhaps the funniest part of your response was this post.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/7.html#000102

    This is really good. Any time that I point out that the modern sequence is very strong, you pop me for not sticking to your topic of hte old, original version of the horse sequence. But look at what you do in this post.

    You say "Lets see HOW the bogus fraud "presented as THOUGH it were DISCOVERED FACT" was accepted by atheist Darwinist evolutionists!! The WILD, Classic, Traditional (Darwinian) claim for Horse evolution:" But then look at the quotes that you give.

    We can establish from you Simpson quotes that the orthogenetic view was out of favor, replaced by the plyletic view by the 1950's. Yet all of the quotes that you present here in this post, proclaiming that it shows those silly, evil evolutionist accepting the "discredited" version of horse evolution are all from times since.

    You, once again, are mixing up apples and oranges without regard for the truth. But that does seem to be your real theme on most topics.

    But it gets even better. You recite the following quote twice. "The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution." You really need to become more familar with the definitions of the debate. Just because it has the word "continuous" does not mean that you can stop reading there. The key word is "phyletic." Phyletic is the opposite of orthogenetic. If you are trying to show that people mistakenly were accepting an orthogenetic view, then it undermines your case to have your oldest quote in the group to be proclaiming phyletic evolution for the horse.
     
    #109 UTEOTW, Feb 22, 2006
  10. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So let's see just what we did get from you by way of response.

    Now this leaves not much clear to knowing what you are talking about, but it does seem to narrow it down to two possibilities.

    1.

    The first possibility is that you think that they really did not have a transitional sequence. In other words, you think that the series they proposed was wrong. OK.

    Now, if this is the case, then you need to build your case for us. You need to tell us what animals that they had in their original series and then show how those animals ended up to not be a part of the modern series.

    So which animals were mistakenly and deliberately (since you are alledging not just that they were wrong but that they were frauds) put into the series only to be removed later?

    Is that not it? Well that leaves one other possibility.

    2.

    Your problem may be that the original sequence was smooth and continuous while the modern is anything but. This possiblity may be bolstered by you later statement that "Their fraudulent "arranging of the data" was a problem with data going all the way back to Darwin -- Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record."

    Now in this case, you really have your work cut out for you to try and prove fraud. For what you are trying to show is that the scientific method itself, perhaps even the human learning process as a whole, is a fraudulent way of doing things. Let's review.

    The scientific method. Basically you collect some data. You hypothesize an explanation. You then test that hypothesis by collecting more data. You modify your hypothesis if it still seems valid but incomplete. And then keep repeating these steps for a while.

    So what happened?

    We had a few fossils. A hypothesis was made. We got more fossils. We made a few changes but left most of the original hypothesis intact.

    The salient point to remember here is that most of the details were correct even in the original hypothesis. This is key.

    In both cases horses evolved from the same small browsing animal with generalized teeth, a flexible body, pads on the feet instead of hooves and three toes on one pair of feet and four on the other pair.

    In both case the teeth specialized into a set optimized for grazing over a period of time.

    In both, the feet changed such that the pads disappeared and the animals began to run on their tiptoes with the nails becoming hooves.

    In both, the feet were reduced to a single toes per foot.

    In both, the two toes to either side became shin splints.

    In both, there was a great increase in size.

    In both, the skelton became less flexible and more suited to galloping.

    And the fossils originally discovered to be part of the series are still a part of the series.

    The thing that did change from the original hypothesis was the tempo and mode of horse evolution.

    Now if you want to say that this was fraudulent, you are going to have to build a better case than simply slecting a few quotes that highlight the small changes from the original hypothesis. The scientific method is not a fraudulent process. Yet that seems to be what you are asserting here.

    At the time of the original hypothesis, there were enough fossils to correctly make the connection from Eohippus to Equus. There was enough data to correctly figure out the changes that took place. But the resolution of the data was not fine enough to correctly determine the tempo and mode.

    In fact, the same change happened to the opinion of most of the fossil record. In the 19th century, orthogeneic ideas predominated. Today, phyletic ideas dominate. It is because the scientific method is being followed. Newdata leads to a refinement of ideas. There is no fraud involved.

    For all you repeated quoting of things that "never happened in nature" it is the solitary detail of the tempo of evolution in the original hypothesis that "never happened." The rest of the hypothesis has been confirmed.

    Not much of a fraud, eh?
     
    #110 UTEOTW, Feb 22, 2006
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    #1. The smooth transitional sequence they CLAIMED to have DISCOVERED - did not happen in nature at all. They simply took existing specimens and ARRANGED THEM to "fit the story"!

    #2. They PRESENTED MERE STORY as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT" in the fossil record - presenting parent-child SEQUENCES that were not valid! They presented specimens that did not show the link in the fossil record that they "needed" so they simply ARRANGED them to show what they needed.

    #3. They ARRANGE the fossils showing smooth transitional sequences - with smooth contiguous size and shape changes SHOWN specimen by specimen starting with the very earliest sequences! They created arrangements - rather than discovering the sequence IN the fossil record!!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    How "typical" that you have to "pretend" not to get "the obvious" when you are married to glossing over details and ignoring inconvenient facts.

    How "instructive" that the atheist darwinists quotes given here "GET the problem with the dubunked series that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" so clearly.

    But the so-called Christian evolutionist POV must "pretend" not to see what both Christians and atheists are stating clearly and in agreement!!

    I love it!!

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #111 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    DeaD WRONG!

    For ALL our glossing over details - it is the REAL sequence REALLY fabricated by REALLY arranging REAL fossils that REALLY SHOW the VERY SMOOTH transition and increase in SIZE and foot shape FROM THE START -- that fraudulent series SHOWS the very things you now DENY that is the REAL problem. The ACTUAL history you are trying to gloss over and ignore in your revisionism.

    Funny how the Atheist darwinist quotes here "get it". Funny how Christians "get it". Funny that you are falling on your sword on the idea that the ACTUAL fossil presentation DOES NOT SHOW the very thing you are now denying!! yet the quotes here SHOW REPEATEDLY that that demonstrated, printed, published fossil "arrangement" DID SHOW EXACTLY what you deny!!

    How "instructive" to the reader!

    How sad that you have to deny fact after obvious fact in your every post UTEOTW! Especially in this case where there is so much AGREEMENT!

    Surely you can do better!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #112 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The series SHOWS smooth orthogenic transitions. UTEOTW DENIES that such was ever found in nature which means the fabricated fossil ARRANGEMENT is in error. But now simply "gloss over the inconvenient details"

    how typical of your every post.
     
    #113 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Readers please note the bait and switch REPEATEDLY employed by UTEOTW.

    The SUBJECT on this thread is the debunked horse series sequence presented IN FOSSIL arrangement that DOES SHOW the VERY smooth orthogenic transistional sequence that even UTEOTW now denies.

    so the SWITCH here by UTEOTW is to constantly SLIP IN a REPLACEMENT for the subject of the fraudulent fossil ARRANGEMENT and talk about the "story" (in vague generalities) that they were trying to "bolster" with the fraudulent "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" arrrangement of the fossils as IF that was "DISCOVERED FACT".

    How transparent UTEOTW!

    How sad that you have to employ that same tactic in post after post! Try staying on topic.
     
    #114 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    That much of what you said is true. I do catch you doing that "time after time".


    And the "inconvenient detail" you are ignoring in the link you gave is that these are MORE atheist darwinians confessing to the original "HIGH HOPES" that had in presenting the fraudulent fossil ARRANGEMENET as IF it was DISCOVERED FACT!

    They are admitting to the IMPLICATIONS of such a contrived "arrangement" for their biased doctrinal views. They establish "motive" for the fraud.


    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #115 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am still confused.

    On the one hand you say

    "How "instructive" that the atheist darwinists quotes given here "GET the problem with the dubunked series that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" so clearly."

    This is really confusing.

    This makes it sound like the original series did not have any transitionals at all. Yet you fail to tell us what animals were mistakenly put into the series.

    You also ignore the fact that the original series got most details correct except for the tempo and mode of change. This fact really does not fit your ideas.

    Finally, you ignore the plain reading of your quotes, in context, that shows that it is the orthogenetic change that did not happen. This has nothing to do with the series as a whole. Therefore you have failed to provide a single fact, or even in context quote, that supports this idea.

    But you also say.

    "For ALL our glossing over details - it is the REAL sequence REALLY fabricated by REALLY arranging REAL fossils that REALLY SHOW the VERY SMOOTH transition and increase in SIZE and foot shape FROM THE START -- that fraudulent series SHOWS the very things you now DENY that is the REAL problem."

    Now you are back to seeming to nit pick over the whole orthogenetic change versus phyletic change.

    If this is your point, you ignore that most deatils were correct except forthe pace of change.

    If this is your point, then you are condemning both the scientific method as a whole and the process of human learning in general.

    If this is your point, then you are saying they committed fraud for not proclaiming phyletic change before anyone had ever proposed phyletic change.

    Your posts here are a mystery to me. It would help if you would actually argue science in the science forum. You know facts and references. For whatever value you attach to them, quotes are not scientific arguement.

    Worse still, if you insist on quoting, you must allow the original intent of the author to stand. For example, if you hypothetically had a quote that said a certain type of change never actually happened you cannot quote that person asif they said the change itself never happened.

    But you wouldn't do that, would you?
     
    #116 UTEOTW, Feb 22, 2006
  17. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    So let me see if I get this right.

    "The series SHOWS smooth orthogenic transitions. UTEOTW DENIES that such was ever found in nature which means the fabricated fossil ARRANGEMENT is in error."

    So your whole problem is that even though they got most details right, that is since they missed the boat on orthogenetic change versus phyletic change (before phyletic change had ever been hypothesized) that they are a bunch of frauds and that we can discard the whole series because the proposed tempo of change was wrong.
     
    #117 UTEOTW, Feb 22, 2006
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    I supposed that since the modern series gets the phyletic change part right that you accept the modern horse evolution sequence, right?
     
    #118 UTEOTW, Feb 22, 2006
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Wrong "again".

    The debunking of the fraudulently arranged sequence DOES NOT depend on finding EVERY detail to be a fraud. All you have to do is find that the overall story is contrived, is simply ARRANGED to fit the story.

    Your vaccuous point above is like say "when you say the fraudulent series is bad you make it sound like none of the fossils were REAL".

    your bogus misdirection is not solving the problem for you.

    It is atheist dwarinians THEMSELVES that admit that the series DOES OBVIOUSLY (to adults and children alike) SHOW smooth orthogenic transitional sequencing ALL the way through!

    How often do you want me to bring up this embarrassing fact that you are engaging in misdirection and glossing over even the most obvious and glaring details?

    Why do you enjoy having you own argument exposed in that way? Do you call that "science"??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
    #119 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Oh if only we could talk about the modern story "instead" of the subject of the thread eh UTEOTW??!!

    If only we could ignore sound scientific review and "lessons learned" from the debunked horse series!!

    If "only"
     
    #120 BobRyan, Feb 22, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 6 of 10
Loading...