A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

BobRyan · Dec 8, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What appeared to be a nice progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UTEOTW said
This is your explanation. The original horse series, the one that was constrained by being assumed to be Dawinian in nature, the one that was assumed to follow a gradual process, had to be modified
Click to expand...

Raup said --

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously it was "discarded" because it was "all wrong". It was a "story easily made up" but it "never happened in nature".

So getting back to the initial point UTEOTW -- "Darwin's problem" was defined as what? What "problem" was DARWIN dealing with?

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Dec 8, 2004

I took your challenge Bob, not take mine.

Go through the FULL QUOTE of your dear Simpson quote and tell us what you think he was attempting to communicate with each line.

It is not my fault that once more of Raup's statement is exposed than what you gave us, it becomes quite clear that he was saying that gradualism, as envisioned by Darwin, is what we do not find happening in general. Sorry if that is a disappointment to you, but when Raup says "Darwins problem with the fossil record has NOT been alleviated," he means that the fossil finds do not support Darwinian gradual evolution but instead show puncuated equilibrium.

I am sorry that Raup, in the very article you choose to quote, calls evolution a "fact."

I am sorry that he says that even the rarely used mechanism of Darwinian gradual change by natural selection still has a "mountain" of evidence.

I am sorry that the full quotes never reveal the statement to be what you made it out to be.

But, that's not my problem.

UTEOTW · Dec 8, 2004

"UTEOTW's "dodge" for this POINTED post is simply."

Did you read?

There was no dodge. I did the same thing to you that I always do. I provided a fuller quote and revealed your snippet to mean something else when placed in context.

Here again is how you present the quote.

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Click to expand...

Here again is the full quote.

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)
Click to expand...

Here again is my paraphrase.

Early on the tempo of evolution was believed to be that of slow, steady, gradual change from one species to another. We said that the process was orthogenetic. The horse, as an example, has long been shown in textbooks with this type of change. A very gradual and progrssive change from Hyracotherium, the earliest horse, to Equus, the genus that includes the modern horse and the zebra. This gradual transformation, however, never actually occured in nature!

When examining the trends in the evolution of the horse, no single pattern emerges. Instead of a gradual increase in size, we instead see no change in size through the first third of the sequence. Even after that, the changes in size were not steady. Some lines of descent showed large changes in size while others showed small changes. Some groups of horse even followed the increase in size with a decrease in size.

The same thing can also be seen in the reduction of the number of toes. The reduction was not gradual. For the first 15-20 million years of the sequence, the horses maintained the four toes on the front feet of Hyracotherium. Then the front feet rapidly reduced to three toes. After this, most of the horse genera simply maintained the three toed foot. In one group, the side toes rapidly reduced in size. After this change, most of the decendent genera simply maintained this new foot. However, the was agin a small group from this group that shrunk the side toes further and gave rise to the modern horse.

As seen, there is no trend in the history of the horse family that affected the whole family. Even in individual lines of descent, there were not any traits that steadily and gradually changed even in just that one line. This is because trends in evolution really do not have to act that way. Trends in evolution need not be orthogenetic.

We now have a very complete fossil record of the horse family, Equidae. There are many other fossil series, however, that are known at least equally well. But, the horse series must be presented correctly with all its fits and starts and stops. The simple, gradual presentation is incorrect. But, when presented correctly, the horse series is still a classic example of evolution in action and can be very instructive.
Click to expand...

I again demand your paraphrase of the full quote that shows that when dealing with the FULL QUOTE you can still make it say the same thing as what you attempt in your snippet of a quote.

UTEOTW · Dec 8, 2004

If you honestly believe that you are quoting homestly, you will rise up to the challenge. If you are not quoting honestly and know it, then it is predicatible that you will either not attempt to paraphrase the whole quote or you will only selectively do so and falsely call it done.

UTEOTW · Dec 8, 2004

I will not hold my breath waiting for you to treat a quote honestly.

UTEOTW · Dec 8, 2004

I see that in your last quote of Raup, true to form, you remove the "modified" part of the quote to make it appear to say that he said the horse series had to be "discarded." Subtle evidence that you know you are misquoting. You removed the possibily of the reader recognising the part of the quote that is less charitable to your position.

An example of the fruits of YE.

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

See? the "DETAIL" that you IGNORE everytime - "as if it did not exist" is finally the only thing I leave IN the quote - to see if you will EVER admit to having seen Raup SAY "DISCARDED" in HIS own statement!

Finally - you admit he DID say it!!

(Wow has THAT ever been a long time in coming).

If you have such trouble with the "easy" part of the debate - what of the more difficult concepts?

Your other ploy is to pretend that Christians can not quote Simpson WITHOUT ALSO claiming that SIMPSON is no longer an evolutionist!

(Not that anyone believes you when you make those absurd claims )

Here is another set of Simpson quotes with some comments by me SHOWING that Simpson is NOT expected to abandon is religious faith in evolutionism simply because he notes a blunder in that religion.

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.
Click to expand...

Q: Was a continuous sequence PRESENTED as fact in the horse series? Answer: YES!

Q: Was that simply a “story easy enough to make up … but not science”? Answer: YES!

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Click to expand...

“Obviously” the claim we make here is NOT the Simpson is no longer an atheist. “Obviously” the claim we make here is not that Simpson is not an “evolutionist anyway” – in spite of the disconfirming evidence. It is that he sees the problem with the WELL KNOWN horse series and admits. No doubt he clings to evolutionism “anyway” and hopes that punctuated equilibrium will be the “excuse” needed for lack of transitional forms (a lack “predicted” by the Creation story in Genesis).

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."—George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.
Click to expand...

These “popularizations” are simply “not true” they are “not science”. Yet “still” they are “stories easy enough to make up” eh UTEOTW?

David Raup, Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, ,formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."
D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50, pg 24, 1979.
Click to expand...

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]
Click to expand...

(And of course a few other quotes from that same section of my notes)

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Dec 9, 2004

Bob, by avoiding the challenge of paraphrasing the full Simpson quote for us, you are showing that even YOU KNOW that you are not being honest with us when you quote. You do not take the challenge because you know it is impossible to do without revealingthat you changed the meaning by the way you presented the snippet. Just like you were shown to have done yesterday with the Raup quote. Raup says that contrary to Darwin, the data for evolution shows that punctuated equilibrium predominates over gradualism as a mechanism. You quote the smaller amount of evidence for gradual processes in a way that makes it sound like there is not any evidence for ANY mechanism. You lied to us. Just as you have lied to us by trying to tell us that Simpson said that the horse series does not exist.

You refuse the challenge because you know you are wrong.

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

There was no dodge. I did the same thing to you that I always do. I provided a fuller quote and revealed your snippet to mean something else when placed in context.

Here again is how you present the quote.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."— *G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.
Click to expand...

Here again is the full quote....

</font>[/QUOTE]And there "AGAIN" you FAILED to SHOW something either IN the quote that is not exact OR in my comment about the quote that in any way changes the fact of the quote or the force of the quote I provided!

Why can't you actually "make your case" IN the details??

Why are "details" and facts so unpleasant for you?

There is no doubt that Simpson REMAINs an evolutoinist and DEPRIVED of the "story" if continuous evolutionary change from ancestor to descendant he will STILL tell "stories' by stringing EVEN LARGER gaps together and BY FAITH claiming that they STILL show ancestor-descendant evolutionary change happened.

(Recall that in the end - the horsey has to have a mommie -- like it or not)

The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent.
Click to expand...

Then it (INCREASE in SIZE from ancestor to Descendant) OCCURED QUITE IRREGULARLY ... different degrees, different LINES all changing size.

Consider that lineA is NOT the ancestor of LINE B. LINE A changes have no effect at all on LINE B descendants.

Why? Because in the end "The horsey has to have a mommie"!

In the end it is the ANCESTOR that gives birth to the descendant - NOT some "other line".

Punctuated equilibirium brings the "Stories" of evolutionism CLOSER to what is actually found in the fossil record AND CLOSER to what God's Creation "account" predicts in Gen 1-2:3.

LINES do not producde DESCENANTS in OTHER parallel lines. In the end it is ONLY ANCESTORS give birth to descendants. There is "no victory" in abserving a "Change in another line" as if that is going to get the descendants in THIS line to change.

And there is no victory (for the religion of evolutionism) in saying of that OTHER line - there is no way even WITHIN the line to show change from ancestor to descendant.

Read it and weep!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob, by avoiding the challenge of paraphrasing the full Simpson quote for us, you are showing that even YOU KNOW that you are not being honest with us when you quote. You do not take the challenge because you know it is impossible to do without revealingthat you changed the meaning by the way you presented the snippet.
Click to expand...

Did you SHOW some meaning I gave it that is not true?

Yet??

Ok I see. "not yet"!

But you keep making that claim! Doesn't that bother you just a little?

Just like you were shown to have done yesterday with the Raup quote. Raup says that contrary to Darwin, the data for evolution shows (NO CHANGE from ancestor to DESCENDANT)...that punctuated equilibrium predominates over gradualism as a mechanism.
Click to expand...

NOW THERE is a case where I alter the quote! Please us that example if you like.

Notice the PROBLEM that Darwin has is that the "Horsey has a mommy!" and he knows that in the end he NEEDS ancestors to have children that are "different" from the ancestor in slight degrees. (Hopeful monster stories not withstanding)

UTEOTW
You quote the smaller amount of evidence for gradual processes in a way that makes it sound like there is not any evidence for ANY mechanism. You lied to us.
Click to expand...

"you quote AS IF" -- what a "story" to base your baseless charge upon.

I repeatedly claim that evolutionists ARE STILL evolutionists and STILL by faith believe in CHANGE!

I have not only implied it I EXPLICITLY STATE it!

How can you keep up your pattern of baseless charges without actuall evidence other than "quote AS IF" charges followed by "you lied to us"??

Your methods fit perfectly the "stories easy enough to make up" of evolutionism in general!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

UTEOTW
Just as you have lied to us by trying to tell us that Simpson said that the horse series does not exist.

You refuse the challenge because you know you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually this is just a case of you not telling the truth "again".

Raup ADMITS that THE horse series published in books FAMILIAR TO ALL and "popularized" in the late 1800 DOES NOT EXIST in nature! Did you SEE HIM SAY IT??

Would you like to SEE it again?

However YOUR bait-and-switch response is to SWITCH from the context of THE SERIES first published in the late 1800's and jump to the modern "damage control" story about ANOTHER way for horse evolution to be shown. An entirely DIFFERENT claim than was being SHOWN in the horse SERIES of the late 1800's.

By CHANGING the defintion of "THE HORSE SERIES" in the middle of your response you are misdirecting and creating a baseless pointless rabbit trail.

See? Yet?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

You can not cling to BOTH the stories about "THE" Horse series first popularized in the late 1800's AND the modern damage control tactics invented to shore up the glaring blunder of evolutionism in telling that story.

Either the damage control "stories" are true OR the actual HORSE SERIES popularized IN SCIENCE text books since the late 1800s is true - they can not BOTH be true because the DAMAGE CONTROL version says of the OLDER version

"ALL wrong"

"Never happened in nature"

"Lamentable"

"FALSIFIED"

"DISCARDED"

"STORIES easy enough to make up... but NOT SCIENCE!"

How can you miss the obvious - so often???

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Dec 9, 2004

Take the challenge Bob. The evidence is that you know you are lying to us and are afraid of exposing yourself.

I have shown you in the past where you have made your mistakes in all the above snippets. But it is time to pin you down on one example. YOu claim that you have never incorrectly presented a quote. I say you have. The Simpson quote seems to be the one youthrow out the most, so I choose that one. I gave the full quote and I assert that it gives a different meaning that what is implied by your snippet. YOu disagree.

Fine. Put up or shut up. Paraphrase the whole quote to show us that what Simpson was talking about was actually that the horse series never existed. Show that my claims that he was talking about gradualism and how THAT is what did not happen are wrong. Show us.

You do not because you know you are lying to us and you do not want to be exposed any further.

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Take the challenge Bob. The evidence is that you know you are lying to us and are afraid of exposing yourself.
Click to expand...

Wrong - "again" UTEOTW.

There is NO evidence that you have ever been able to prove a single baseless charge.

The BEST you have come up with is that you "don't like" the quotes I show to be EXACT quotes of your hallowed atheist icons on the subject of evolutionism.

How "instructive" - wouldn't you say?

You keep making baseless charges - but -- have nothing to support them.

UTEOTW

I have shown you in the past where you have made your mistakes in all the above snippets.
Click to expand...

Wrong "as usual" UTEOTW.

You have SHOWN that you prefer NOT to pay attention to the details in the EXACT quotes I provide and to focus INSTEAD on OTHER statements by those same authors AS IF that enables you to engage in a kind of "revisionist history' that ignores the details "evolutionism needs you to ignore".

How sad that you should claim those transparent tactics of yours - have "proven" something about anyone but yourself!

Why not simply address the DETAILS in the quotes I gave above?

UTEOTW

But it is time to pin you down on one example. YOu claim that you have never incorrectly presented a quote. I say you have.
Click to expand...

You are getting warmer - but still glaringly wrong in a very big area of your statement above.

You say 'it is time to pin you down on ONE example"

You are wrong - it is LONG PAST TIME to do that!

It was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY passed the point where you should have been able to "SHOW IN DETAIL" how any of your bogus accusations could be sustained BESIDES arguing that the SAME author that DISPLEASES you - ALSO in other quotes PLEASES you.

Your transparent methods have not served you well so far.

UTEOTW
The Simpson quote seems to be the one youthrow out the most,
Click to expand...

Wrong "again" UTEOTW.

I have been quoting Gould Patterson and Raup almost non-stop. Simpson has been usefull - but Raup, Eldridge, and Patterson have been getting most of my attention.

Are the "facts" really that hard for you?

so I choose that one. I gave the full quote and I assert that it gives a different meaning that what is implied by your snippet. YOu disagree.
Click to expand...

I did not "imply" anything - you merely "infer" to your hearts content and then transparently charge that whatever you imagine or infer - (without actually having a quote from me to that affect) is your "proof".

How sad.

How consistent with the stories of evolutionism that as Patterson says "are EASY enough to make up" but have no basis in fact --

UTEOTW
Fine. Put up or shut up. Paraphrase the whole quote to show us that what Simpson was talking about was actually that the horse series never existed. Show that my claims that he was talking about gradualism and how THAT is what did not happen are wrong. Show us.
Click to expand...

What a silly position to take UTEOTW. Do you actually READ the posts???

I charge that THE Horse Series "popularized" in the late 1800 and STILL LAMENTABLE in the published works of the 1980s was "DISCARDED" was "ALL WRONG" (THEIR words not mine) and that even SIMPSON admitted to it as he points out that WHAT THAT SERIES claims to SHOW in its EXPLICIT ancestor decendant SERIES - "never happened in nature".

How in the world can you keep pretending to cling to BOTH the discredited HORSE series of the late 1800's AND to the authors that DECRY it?

Yours is a self-conflicted evolutionist world - to be sure.

UTEOTW
You do not because you know you are lying to us and you do not want to be exposed any further.
Click to expand...

Huh??

Please come back to earth! Join in actually POINTING to details to make your case.

Do you really think that continuing to "make stuff up" is going to help your case here?

Please be serious.

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Dec 9, 2004

Bob, you verify that you know you own dishonestly by not playing the game. Paraphrase each line of the full SImpson quote to show that when read in context, it mean the same thing as what you imply with your snippet.

You will not meet the challenge because you are fully aware of your own dishonesty. To go through line by line you would either be forced to show a different meaning than what you iniitally claimed or you would have to deviate far from the obvious reading.

BobRyan · Dec 9, 2004

UTEOTW - since you seemed to start out the thread with a flurry of bogus ideas - perhaps one that is specific to the actual topic might help.

From one of UTEOTWs early posts --
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you see that what he is saying is not that the fossil record is not any use for proving evolution. He is saying that he knows of three better methods. And since he is a zoologists, is it surprising that he finds three subjects from his field to be the best at proving evolution is true?
Click to expand...

You should be totally embarrassed by that summary of yours.

If you still had objective critical thinking as something you used in debates - you would have said that the author shows that he rejects the fossil record as forming any kind of valid argument in favor of evolutionism - but he does find OTHER sources to make the argument FOR evolutionism.

Instead of that - you (can't help yourself "I guess" so you exactly NEGATE his opening point AS if you could REVISE the argument in the quote AS IF the author had REALLY said

"ALTHOUGH the Fossil RECORD IS AN EXCELLENT form of proof in favor of evolutionism and is used reliably and effectively by ALL REAL evolutionists to make their case, we ALSO have EVEN BETTER proofs in the form of observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy"
Click to expand...

But instead of taking a DEFENDABLE position as I show in my summary above -- you take that bogus approach of exactly contradicting your own source! You can't seem to help "jumping off a cliff" into hyper revisionism in exactly contradicting the source you choose to quote.

Now admittedly that quote was not one of my initiatives in the least - but your own post shows the degree to which you feel free to ignore what is actually written.

Have you no respect at all for "details"?

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW · Dec 9, 2004

Quit changing the subject.

Go line by line through the Simpson quote and show us that when taken it full it still means the same as when you present it as saying the horse series "never existed."

UTEOTW · Dec 9, 2004

Oh, and you know how things go when you try to quote. Let me give even more of the Ridley quote above. Same article.

Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media... Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not --- as much recent publicity has implied --- doubt that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record.
Some palaeontologists maintain that animals have
evolved gradually, through an infinity of intermediate stages from one form to another. Others point out that fossils record offers no firm evidence for such gradual change. What really happened, they suggest, is that any one
animal species in the past survived more or less unchanged for a time, and then either died out or evolved rapidly into a new descendant form (or forms). Thus, instead of gradual change, they posit the idea of "punctuated equilibrium". The argument is about the actual historical pattern of evolution; but outsiders, seeing a controversy unfolding, have imagined that it is about the truth of evolution --- whether evolution occured [sic] at all.
This is a terrible mistake; and it springs, I believe, from the false idea that the fossil record provides an important part of the evidence that evolution took place. In fact, evolution is proven by a totally separate set of
arguments --- and the present debate within palaeontology does not impinge at all on the evidence that supports evolution... lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.
Click to expand...

Again, we see that Ridley is talking about evolution being a "fact" and that it can be proven without even referring to the fossil record. He is not saying the fossil record is worhtless or useless. He is saying the record from other sources is so good that it is unneeded.

UTEOTW · Dec 9, 2004

Now, let's have that line by line paraphrase of Raup if you think you have quoted hin correctly. Maintain your obstinance if you have not.

BobRyan · Dec 10, 2004

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Quit changing the subject.

Go line by line through the Simpson quote and show us that when taken it full it still means the same as when you present it as saying the horse series "never existed."
Click to expand...

Quit making baseless charges USE ACTUAL QUOTES to SHOW what you claim I am saying!

IS it so hard for you to rely on FACT INSTEAD of "you are IMPLYING" or "you are not saying but are sorta making me think about this as you speak to this subject"... kind of wishy washy arguments??

Come on - put the facts on the table.

I SHOW that not ONLY Simpson BUT ALL those I have quoted "LAMENT" THE horse series first published in the late 1800's.

THE HORSE series that THEY Say "IS ALL WRONG".

THE HORSE series that THEY SAY "never happend in nature"

THE HORSE series that THEY say "is discarded"

THE HORSE SERIES that THEY SAY "is LAMENTABLE" simply because it EXISTS in science text books in the 1980's!!!

How you can "pretend" not to get this is beyond me.

But you are married to "stories EASY ENOUGH to MAKE up... but they are NOT SCIENCE" Colin Patterson.

However - IF you took any time at all for objective thought, for critical thought you would QUICKLY see that you have an even WORSE problem for youself by your zeal for the doctrines of evolutionism -- you have destroyed it.

And lets explore that for a minute. (Clear, objective thought will be needed so brace yourself).

In Christ,

Bob

A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

UTEOTW New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member