Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

In your oft repeated statement above (that has completely ignored the response that exposes your blunder and asks you for a cogent substantive response "to the point raised") you "once again" assert that the debunked discredited "never happened in nature" horse series is in fact a valid series among many valid sequences that DID happen -- but are just not the "most direct" sequence.

BY CONTRAST - the Atheist Darwinists show that "IT NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" and UTEOTW says it is totally debunked, discredited and in fact a STRAW MAN sequence that should not even get mentioned.

You call that "the same" as what you have said above??

What kind of blinders do you use when reading this thread?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Let's see "all wrong" and "strawman" and "no one today even advocates"...

But Paul claims that this is all good stuff - a valid sequence that DID happen in nature -

And then glosses over all these "inconvenient details" as if BOTH the UTEOTW statements and Paul are AFFIRMING that debunked horse series?

Is there any limit to the glossing over of inconvenient details that will be demonstrated by true believers in atheist darwinist evolutionism on this thread??

In Christ,

Bob

 

So Paul you deny ALL the iconvenient quotes here?

"Never happened in nature"

"all wrong"

"lamentable sequence PRESENTED AS IF it was FACT"

ALL of them you simply "turn a blind eye to"??

What kind of blinders are you using there?

 

I only ask that you try to read the "details" in the quotes below and pay attention to what it actually says.


Try not to "blame me" for what the atheist darwinians are saying in these quotes

Notice the presentation was “all wrong”. HOW could an “ALL wrong” presentation be concocted WITHOUT the evidence for it?? Answer: With LESS data and fewer example there is room for “more story telling”!!. Their “Story” was better with less data!! (And so it is with “all stories”!!)

</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

So now going beyond Paul's blind devotion to the discredited horse sequence and beyond UTEOTW's habitual ad hominem and vaccuous attempts to divert to OTHER horse stories instead of the one in focus here -- (Though these two diversions have been a lot of fun so far)

POST MORTEM note 1:

Were the atheist darwinist doctrines on evolutionism "science" instead of bad religion disguised as pseudoscience we would EXPECT to find that scientists would be saying "We discovered MORE data than we had before which showed that the earlier assumptions/guesses were incorrect".

If they could GET to that level of actual "SCIENCE" they would have abandoned the false doctrines of evolutionism long ago.

What we have in historic fact is that the pseudoscience high priests of evolutionism "ARRANGED the fossils to FIT their doctrines and then presented the psuedoscience arrangement AS IF it were fact".

There was no "We predict that this arrangment will be found IN the fossil record some day" - rather they took ACTUAL fossils already found and already KNOWN not to be in the "sequence contrived for their purposes" and simply "arranged it to fit their doctrines" presenting it "As though it were fact" according to the Atheist darwinists that now discredit and debunk that fabricated sequence.

NOTE: No NEW informatin "came in" to debunk their story "presented as IF it were fact". All the bogus assumptions were KNOWN at the start to show that it was "guesswork not actual FACTUAL sequences".

What was not fully known by the authors was that this level of "fabrication" could be as easily detected as it was!! That simply glossing over the facts THEY ALREADY knew - to the level they were doing it - would not fly long term.

In other words to do the post mortem is to do a study on the "art of deception" practiced "as a matter of policy" within the sacred halls of the priesthood of evolutionism's faithful devotees.

I am sure your knee jerk reaction is to dismiss the inconvenient details now and oversimplify this into something like "Only Bob could know that". But in fact these are published facts by atheist darwinians themselves. I am simply connecting the dots they have provided in their confessions about the duplicity and fabrication that went into making the series in the first place.

 

How is it that something that "never actually happened" is presented "A though it were true"?

It happens because the presentation uses ACTUAL fossils and ARRANGES them to fIT the story being told!! Then the presentation is stated AS IF this was actually found in the very sequence presented! The subject of the "guesswork" that went into presenting the "bogus series" and the contrived arranging that goes into it - are all carefully hidden from the text books when presenting evolutionism. Just S.O.P. for evolutionists.

In other words it is the "practice" of this particular pseudoscience to "engage in the art of deception". Marshall did not consider anything he was doing as "out of line" or dishonest! He was just sticking to the established policies of contrived sequence presentations without full disclosure!!

 

Post Mortem observation 2

“Just so” stories “easy enough to tell” euphemistically called “thought experiements”

The authors that put the contrived series together did not KNOW that IN THE FUTURE the sequence they presented would never be found and would be continually discredited with each successive find. ALL they had to do is say "we PREDICT that future finds will confirm this suggested sequence" and they would have been just fine EVEN if future discovery did NOT confirm their guesswork.

But the practice of dishonestly presenting "guesswork as though it were actual fact" is S.O.P. for evolutionists! THAT is the unique aspect to this artifact of their pseudoscience.

The underlying principle in atheist darwinist evolutionism is simply - lying.

"Presenting Guesswork AS THOUGH it were actual fact"[/quote]

 

More "Facts to gloss over" in the post mortem?

 

Are you "alegergic" to the OP or are you simply tied to "Story hopping"???

You ask "This thread is on subject A so are we going to be talking about subject B now?"

Are you following the "details" here UTEOTW?

Are ever going to be able to actually discuss a post mortem on the "debunked horse series" (subject "A" which is THE topic of this thread) or are you stuck asking that we NOT talk about subject "A" and only talk about "B"??

Why is this concept so difficult for you??

I just know you can do better UTEOTW!

Try to engage in the topic rather than continually dodging and ducking "the lessons learned" focus here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

here we see the schizoid approach being used by UTEOTW and Paul.

UTEOTW wants to complain that this embarrassing topic is even being discussed and as he refuses to discuss "Topic A" which is the LESSONS LEARNED from the DEBUNKED horse series -- he still has the common sense to state it as a discredited "read debunked" horse series.

But Paul is STILL stuck falling in his sword defending the strawman "debunked" horse series!!

Pretty funny Paul. Falling on your sword over debunked series that UTEOTW is abandoning and even your own atheist darwinist icons call "lamentable" and a story "presented as though it were fact" a story that "NEVER happened in nature".

But of course these inconvenient details are just glossed over in your oft-repeated dodge. Is it any wonder that I asked you --

Is it any wonder that you failed to respond?!!



In Christ,

Bob

 

You mean NNE accepts the debunked horse series that is "ALL wrong" that "NEVER happened in nature" that is story "presented as though it were fact"??

You have clearly NOT been reading Paul on this thread --!

Paul falls on his sword on this one declaring it to be one of MANY VALID sequences that DID happen

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Clearly you and Paul need to get your act together.

Having said that "I obviously" agree that the horse series has been "debunked" just as the evidence here shows.

I am asking for a "Post Mortem" a "lessons learned" review of the bogus atheist darwinist METHODS that PRODUCED the bogus horse series.

Now WHY would I want to do a "lessons learned" on something that ALL CAN FINALLY AGREE TO?? Hmm lets think about that for second.

Oh WAIT!! I know!! How about so we do not Do It Again!!

(Such a goal of course is never the objective of the evolutionist -- hence the dodging and ducking)

In Christ,

Bob

 

I predict that UTEOTW will continue to run, to dodge to avoid the point of this thread.

Paul apparently is stuck "defening a debunked horse series that EVEN atheist darwinists and UTEOTW no longer support"

But BOTH will dodge "the details" ducking the entire focus on "lessons learned" as they fear "lessons learned" more than any other topic!!

How "instructive".

How interesting that the atheist darwinians would have to take the same "Avoidance" approach to the entire concept of "LESSONS LEARNED" when it comes to THEIR OWN DEBUNKED STORIES!!

No "why" do you suppose they have that in common?

Guesses anyone?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "same" tired old "misdirection" from UTEOTW "again".

Why not "read" and see that I have fully agreed to the "Story hopping" Model of evolutionists?

Why not actually think before you post misdirection after misdirection.

The point of this thread and of the quotes WAS NEVER "this is THE LAST story every told about horses by atheist darwinists".

Your failed attempts to build that kind of strawman could never be considered "credible" by either evolutionist or creationist that actually "read" the details of the post on "LESSONS learned"!!

Why not engage in actual conversation UTEOTW instead of talking with yourself about points that were never raised and then calling those points "deceitful"???

Your failed tactics are simply old and tired at this point. Try doing better. Try getting beyond atheist darwinist avoidance policies. Try actually engaging in the topic!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Petrel - in your constant efforts to gloss over the details in every subject area that you post - - you finally provided a "quote" out of context and spun it to your imaginative misdirection -- but are you actually "making a point" with such tactics?

No - You simply reveal the motives of your posts.

How about actually engaging in substantive dialog instead?

Is there really "no substance" that the doctrines of evolutionism will "allow you" to cogently respond to ...???

I just can't believe your system is this vaccuous.

Surely you guys can do better!

In Christ,

Bob