Evolutionism's appeal to junk science

[UTEOTW]

Bob

THis gets silly when you continue to post the same things over and over. Even more disturbing is that you post the quotes multiple times after the dishonesty of them has been pointed out to you. You post them once, shame on whoever you are quoting from. But this...

It does give me one more opportunity to expose YE for its "junk" science.

Let's just go through them briefly, full responses are elsewhere.

George Gaylord Simpson: He is not saying the horse sequence is a fraud. There was once an idea called orthogenesis that said that evolution proceeds in a straight, continuous, steady line. He was pointing out that this is not what we actually see in nature and was using the horse series as an example. Look at the date there, 1953. This was a change going on as data was collected. Many of the early people believed that gradualism and orthogenesis was the only way when in reality they are the exception rather than the rule. SO he was pointing out the the series was jerky. Sometimes it goes in one direction, sometimes in another. It is not a straight line, there are all sorts of side branches. The tree is bushy. The parts of the quote you excised contained all sorts of details on different intermediates. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000169

Dr. David M. Raup: This is again a discusion of how the horse sequence, and most sequences since he was speaking generally and not specifically, is bushy and jerky. The horse sequence is given as an example of where the gradaulistic ideas of the early part of the last century had to be modified as more data came in and a better picture emerged.

Boyce Rensberger: This is the work of a journalist, not a scientist to begin with. So to begin with you are committing the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Second, this is lifted way out of context. This is again an example used by a wwriter to show the change in thought from simple gradual evolution to bushy jerky evolution once we got more data. http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000168

Dr. Stephen J. Gould: Gould is famously critical of YEers for just this sort of thing. He was a proponent of puncuated equilibrium. So there are quite a few quotes from him that on the surface appear to be highly critical of Dawinism when in fact he is just setting up to show PE. Furthermore, most of these juicy quotes come not from actual papers, but from his works of entertainment. Such misquoting lead him to say ""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." Since you have been shown this each time you misquote Gould, that eliminates the stupidity option so it must be that you "design" to be dishonest.

George Gaylord Simpson: 1944! Can you get quotes from the last 50 years at least!? This is againg making the same mistake as with Gould. The fossil record is spotty to begin with. Plus most change takes place in small, isolated groups over geologically short periods of time. So you do not have a rich fossil record to deal with. But with what we have, we do have numerous examples of transitional series at each level. We have found a few things in the last 60 years to fill in the gaps he saw.

Dr. Colin Patterson: Dr. Patterson was only pointing out that when looking at a particular specimen, you can never be 100% certain of whether is was on the direct line between two other animals or whether it was a side branch. He was not saying that we have no transitionals. For info on what he thought of this and said see http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2589/12.html#000165

Now we have seen, again, that YEers have no ability to quote accurately. Oh they generally get most of the words right, But without the context, they present them in a way to make them appear to say something completely different. Unfortunately, we are also seeing that they have no problems repeating the flawed quotes, even after they have been exposed as dishonest.

 

[UTEOTW]

"You start with essentially "nothing" -- Dawkings takes this right to the point of ABIOGENESIS - which IS my point."

Yes, Bob, we all see.

You say that abiogenesis and evolution neither work and then quote an expert who, in your quote, says that they do. Dawkings is much better informed on this topic than you or me. He is an expert in the field. You are the one quoting from him. SO I just point out that right there in the middle of your quote he says

"Anybody who is not ignorant or a fool can see that evolution is true."

Works for me.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Simply responding that "Atheist evolutionists ARE STILL evolutionists even AFTER the flaw is exposed" -- is hardly a compelling response."

But that is not what is being done.

What is being done is pointing out that you are misrepresenting what they have to say. It is a very valid response to show that they did not intend the meaning that you are attributing to them by removing the context. It is very valid to point out why the false impression you are giving is factually wrong as well.

I think everyone can see what is being done. You have done it so many time that it no longer even requires much in the way of critical thinking. It is turning into an old joke which I will not repeat here. It begins "How can you tell..."

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob

THis gets silly when you continue to post the same things over and over. Even more disturbing is that you post the quotes multiple times after the dishonesty of them has been pointed out to you. You post them once, shame on whoever you are quoting from. But this...

That's a really great "story" UTEOTW -- I appreciate the fact that you like to tell it.

But that is the same as it is with all the other evolutionist "stories" they have no basis in fact - just the "Wishful thinking of evolutionists".

The good news is that this is so obvious.

I expose the fact that your 1+1 is 5 "story" is flawed. I point out that even some of your OWN sources admit that in fact it is 2. You come back with "yes but those atheist evolutionists are STILL believing that somehow it can be thought of as 5 by hopeful evolutionists AND they even give a STORY to go with it".

Then you "pretend to be surprised" that I find that "response" to be a non-response. And you add to that bit of imagination some "flare" as we see above in your post.

As I said - thanks - that is quite entertaining.

For those new to this game of the Evolutionists, a word of explanation.

There are TWO (count them TWO) kinds of discussions on this board. Each with their own set of attributes.

=============================================
#1. Discussion 1 -- between equal "stories"

An example of this is the variable speed of light and the effects of Day 1 and Day if viewed at the event horizon of creation. This is an excellent proposal by some Bible believing Christians to explain how it is that from the POV of earth creation LOOKS like 7 days but in real time - in space it is billions of years.

Of course evolutionists love that level playing fields and will joyfully jump in with "stories of their own" to counter the Christian Bible Believing "Stories". That scenario evolves with endless rolls of the dice, round after round of imaginative creative "story telling".

NOTE: I almost never participate in these story-vs-story style discussions

========================================
#2. Discussion 2 - The massive GAP in Evolutionist story telling fully exposed.

In this discussion a glaring 1+1=6 flaw in a key salient point of the Evolutionist "story" is confessed by Evolutionist sources THEMSELVES (while still clinging "devotedly" to the story of evolutionism of course). Typically these quotes come from atheist evolutionists that "have no other option" when confronted with "problems" for evolutionism.

In this discussion type - creationists point out the obvious and glaring "Flaw" while evolutionists complain, hand wave and then finally say to themselves "any old excuse will do to stop viewing this flaw". After a bit of imaginative "dancing around on side points" in an attempt to misdirect and obfuscate from the obvious - they "pretend" that we are all settled that 1+1 is now 7.

NOTE: I practically camp out on this kind of discussion because it provides opportunity to repeatedly expose the flaw AND the fact that evolutionists have NO response

UTEOTW's response is a perfect example of a vaccuous response devoid of "fact" except the clear and obvious fact that we have been over this same ground many times and he is pretending that "any old response" from an evolutionist "was more than sufficient" to cover up these giant chasms in evolutionism's "Story line".

It is instructive to the extent that we see how human nature works in the halls of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"Simply responding that "Atheist evolutionists ARE STILL evolutionists even AFTER the flaw is exposed" -- is hardly a compelling response."

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

But that is not what is being done.

What is being done is pointing out that you are misrepresenting what they have to say.

Nothing of the kind is "SHOWN" to be the case in any of your responses. RATHER you SHOW that the evolutionist 'has a hopeful story' to help extricate himself - but in telling that "story" you ignore the salient point of the FLAW that is being exposed.

You simply "hope" that the story will serve to misdirect the attention of the reader - it does not. What is fascinating is that you pretend to be surprised by that. That's the one part I don't get.

I have never denied your "story goes here" approach to solving the problem. I simply observe that the story does not actually solve (or even address in most case) the problem being exposed.

See? (yet?)

Case in point - Asimov states that his example really IS "What the 2nd law is all about" you say "oh no it isn't".

Asimov says WE SEE increased entropy in the local system you say "surely we could find some way around that".

Asimov says WE NEED a HUGE DECREASE in entropy for evolutionism's stories to pan out for molecule to brain evolutionism -- you say "YES and Asimov found a reason for us to expect to have SEEN those huge decreases -- i.e. the sun is shining" - which IGNORES the salient point. The point being that what we SEE at the local level is INCREASE instead of the expected "MASSIVE DECREASE".

Simply "telling a story" about the sun shining and how that "should" have allowed us to see the much expected MASSIVE DECREASE does NOTHING to solve your problem since Asimov ALREADY ADMITS that when we LOOK we SEE the INCREASE in entropy in that local system - in which you needed DECREASE.

========================================

The 2nd point of Junk Science has worked the same way. EVOLUTIONISTS admit that their horse series of smooth transitionals is a complete farce and never existed. Clearly the ARRANGED smooth transitional EXAMPLES AS IF this actually happened in real life.

If you KEEP that arrangement -- you keep the fraudulent series completely intact WITHOUT CHANGE. OBviously - we don't do that and you have been dancing around with story after story trying to get out of that one.

I will enjoy watching your creative efforts continue there.

=======================================

Example 3 - YOU bring up a quote that Archaeopteryx IS a TRANSITION BETWEEN reptiles and true birds ONLY to have your OWN evolutionists ADMIT that Archy is a TRUE BIRD.

You have danced and danced on that one with story after story telling us how the CLAIM to show "B" as transition between "A" and "C" is fully supported by simply coming up with TRUE "C" (even if it is unique "C").

Again - an impressive "Story" showing dedication to the 1+1 = 5 myths of evolutionism but "hardly compelling".

And "yes" I know you "need" to pretend you don't get this point to keep up the evolutionist party line... but know that I do find that entertaining and I don't envy you the task you have accepted in these cases of massive chasms in certain stories that you need to tell.


In Christ,

Bob

[ August 08, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Since you offer this as an example - let's highlight it - because it is a classic "I got nothing" response from Evolutionists.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

George Gaylord Simpson: He is not saying the horse sequence is a fraud. There was once an idea called orthogenesis that said that evolution proceeds in a straight, continuous, steady line. He was pointing out that this is not what we actually see in nature and was using the horse series as an example. Look at the date there, 1953. This was a change going on as data was collected. Many of the early people believed that gradualism and orthogenesis was the only way when in reality they are the exception rather than the rule. SO he was pointing out the the series was jerky.

Here the faithful evolutionist "hopes" to misdirect the unwary reader to the idea that MAYBE the series being discussed is "flexible" and pliable such that simply touching it up here or there makes it work.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The objective reader will note that the ONLY thing that Simpson actually HOLDS to is that evolution DID happen with the horse - NOT that we have correctly SHOWN how it happened with any "series" even though we DO have a SERIES printed in eovlutionist text books that CLAIMS to SHOW exactly how it happened.

This means the SERIES ITSELF is wrong as printed in the text books and you can't simply "HAND WAVE over it" to "make it right".

More details?

Coming up.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1 - THE HORSE SERIES
30 DIFFERENT HORSES—
In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.

"Horses are among the best-documented examples of evolutionary development."—*World Book Encyclopedia (1982 ed.), p. 333.
"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FIFTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."

1 - Different animals in each series. In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!
2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.
3 - Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types.
5 - Not from in-order strata. The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)
6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus) is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums. A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.
8 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.
9 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.
10 - Gaps below as well as above. Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.
11 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.
12 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.
13 - Heavily keyed to size. The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.
14 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.
A STUDY IN CONFUSION—In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental, and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:

"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."— *Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Scientists protest such foolishness:

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.
"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . 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. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

FEAR TO SPEAK—Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake.

"Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’
"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.
". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.
NOT A HORSE AT ALL—(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.
"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, 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. 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. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.
"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

"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.

Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"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.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"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.

</font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,
Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

BobRyan: there are just four points that need to be made in reply to your post

1) It would be literally impossible to assemble a series over millions of years without gaps in it. No museum could handle that many fossils. Nor could fossilization possibly fossilize so many fossils. But we can produce examples where the gaps are pretty small and that has been done with the horses.

2) Just because species a splits off to species b does not mean species a HAS TO DIE OFF. Think about wolves and dogs - wolves are still with us. So yes, a MODERN WOLF could serve as an example of the ancestral species to A DOG FROM A THOUSAND YEARS AGO. Especially if fossilization is a rare event and you're lucky to have a wolf fossil at all.

3) Evolution is GENERALLY BUSHY and not a straight line from A to B. That's why we have today so many kinds of canines, so many kinds of catlike creatures, so many kinds of bear like creatures, so many kinds of owls, of eagles, of whales, of . . . everything.

4) Not one species in a thousand is represented in the fossil record. Of these, some of them have hundreds and hundreds of fossil examples, others only have a few. This is because fossilization is extremely rare and discovery of fossils is a chancy thing.

That said, it is a remarkable thing, and evidence for evolutionary theory, that more intermediate forms are being found on a regular basis world wide. There is no reason at all in the creationist world view to expect a fossil to be an intermediary. But they are there.

Finally, there is also the evidence of vesiges. The modern horse definately had a three toed ancestor. The vestiges of the other two toes remain as shin splints on the feet of horses. So the resemblence to earlier fossils is not the only evidence pointing to the evolution of the horse.

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

If your "post" is simply going to copy a web page word for word, the least you could do is give the reference so we do not have to accuse you of plagarism. I'll deal with your post later though you would be well advised to read Paul's response. For that matter, you would be well advised to go back and read through some of the quotes you copied because I see most of the answer to you staring you in the face scattered throughout your post.

BTW, I tracked down your "reference." I love Google.

http://evolution-facts.org/3evlch23.htm

I now see why you are so insistent on using the conference to call archy a bird only. Even after I show that the very authors you cite in the proceedings of the very conference you cite were telling how archy is a transitional. Your reference FLAT OUT LIES by claiming otherwise. I have shown you what they said and it was that this creature was a transitional. They lie about that and you repeat it. The disturbing thing is that you have continued to repeat it even after their actual opinion on the matter has been shown to you. Not just once, but many times have you repeated it after I used the very conference proceedings and the very authors you cited to show that they thought it was a transitional at that conference. This is not even an issue of "critical thinking," it is one of intellectual honesty. There is no critical thinking needed when you are shown that your reference has lied to you. You just quit repeating the lie. Or so I thought. I might be wrong.

 

[UTEOTW]

"That's a really great "story" UTEOTW -- I appreciate the fact that you like to tell it."

It is a "great story," eh? Well how about this. Let's employ the readers opinion. Do you think that Bob has accurately quoted the scientists in question and I have been reduced to making up "stories" (or repeating the "stories" of the men in question) to excuse the flaws he has exposed... Or do you think that Bob has misquoted them and I have shown that this is so by providing the proper context? Do you think the quote presented by Bob were honest and truthful in the their form or do you think enough relevant information was omitted to make the quotes appear to mean something different than what the author intended.

Now, when I was coming out of my YEC shell, things like this were very enlightening. When someone gives you something that sounds so damning, such as Bob's quotes, it can be quite shocking when you actually come across the truth. Since it was that way for me, I think it will be that way for others. So I am happy to continue to point out the dishonesty of quote mining as I think it clearly shows the bed of sand on which YE rests.

"NOTE: I almost never participate in these story-vs-story style discussions"

Let me translate. Bob avoids fact based discussions. Probably smart to do since all the facts point towards an old earth. I would hesitate to use the word "equal" to describe the stories because, as shown ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/15.html#000224 ) the YE stories are built on "junk" versions of science.

"In this discussion type - creationists point out the obvious and glaring "Flaw" while evolutionists complain, hand wave and then finally say to themselves "any old excuse will do to stop viewing this flaw". After a bit of imaginative "dancing around on side points" in an attempt to misdirect and obfuscate from the obvious - they "pretend" that we are all settled that 1+1 is now 7.

NOTE: I practically camp out on this kind of discussion because it provides opportunity to repeatedly expose the flaw AND the fact that evolutionists have NO response"

Let me translate. Since Bob knows that he is unable to appeal to the facts, he attempts to play a game of smoke and mirrors. He will take a perfectly good bit of science, cut out all the factual parts that are getting in his way, and then regurgitate a narrow slice of data, taken out of its proper context, that he believes supports his cause.

Now when the mistake is pointed out to him, say by giving a full quote, checking his references if they exist, or by looking into the actual science instead of his caricature of it, he calls this a "Story line," "a vaccuous response," "any old response," or "imaginative dancing around on side points." He does not see that providing the facts instead of the caricature of them IS a valid and devestating response. But I bet the readers can.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Nothing of the kind is "SHOWN" to be the case in any of your responses. RATHER you SHOW that the evolutionist 'has a hopeful story' to help extricate himself - but in telling that "story" you ignore the salient point of the FLAW that is being exposed."

No. I have shown that you did not tell the truth about what the scientists have said. I added the context that was missing from your posts.

"You simply "hope" that the story will serve to misdirect the attention of the reader - it does not. What is fascinating is that you pretend to be surprised by that. That's the one part I don't get."

You do not get it that I find it useful to point out that YEers cannot accurately quote scientists and that they do not feel any guilt about telling lies?

"Case in point - Asimov states that his example really IS "What the 2nd law is all about" you say "oh no it isn't"."

I have made it quite plain that what Asimov is talking about is not thermodynamic entropy. I have appealed directly to texts on the second law and to experts on the second law. I have adequately demonstrated that what he is doing is using the same analogy that every other person in teh world uses to explain entropy. It is quite instructive that you stick to your one source, even though in the details it contradicts the known science. It is quite instructive that you stick to your expert when even he tells you why entropy is not a problem. That's OK for you, you just cut that part of the response out. [sarcasm]It never existed if Bob cuts it out.[/sarcasm]

"Simply "telling a story" about the sun shining and how that "should" have allowed us to see the much expected MASSIVE DECREASE does NOTHING to solve your problem since Asimov ALREADY ADMITS that when we LOOK we SEE the INCREASE in entropy in that local system - in which you needed DECREASE."

Yes and you ignore the reality of loking around you at the local decreases in entropy that happen all the time. I had to cut my grass AGAIN this weekend.

Lets make a little bet. You say that the sun shining is insufficient to make complex "stuff." Well, we will be dropping a probe into the atmosphere of Titan here in a few months. This probe contains a gas chromatograph with a mass spectrometer detector. I'll bet that we find some pretty complex organic molecules just from the sun shining on the moon for a few billion years. What do you think? Put your money (so to speak) where your mouth is? Neither of us can know the outcome ahead of time.

"Example 3 - YOU bring up a quote that Archaeopteryx IS a TRANSITION BETWEEN reptiles and true birds ONLY to have your OWN evolutionists ADMIT that Archy is a TRUE BIRD.

You have danced and danced on that one with story after story telling us how the CLAIM to show "B" as transition between "A" and "C" is fully supported by simply coming up with TRUE "C" (even if it is unique "C").

Again - an impressive "Story" showing dedication to the 1+1 = 5 myths of evolutionism but "hardly compelling"."

Nope. I showed you how the very people at the very conference you cited were giving evidence at the conference that it is a transitional. And you have continued to make the same claims even after this is pointed out to you. There is "junk" going on here, but it is from your side.

"The 2nd point of Junk Science has worked the same way. EVOLUTIONISTS admit that their horse series of smooth transitionals is a complete farce and never existed. Clearly the ARRANGED smooth transitional EXAMPLES AS IF this actually happened in real life.

If you KEEP that arrangement -- you keep the fraudulent series completely intact WITHOUT CHANGE. OBviously - we don't do that and you have been dancing around with story after story trying to get out of that one.

I will enjoy watching your creative efforts continue there."

Let me give you an analogous situation.

Newton developed his theory of universal gravitation and used it describe orbits. Kepler then came along and used this as a basis for his three laws of orbital motion.

Now these discoveries greatly increased our knowledge of the solar system and how it all works. It was a great improvement. Now I read somewhere recently however that Kepler actaully does a worse job with predicting the motions than Ptolomy did. At the very least, there were some sifnificant inaccuracies in the orbits computed with Kepler.

Later, other effects upon the motions were discovered, such as relatavistic effects. We now know much better how to calculate orbits and the motions of the planetary bodies.

By your logic, however, we should all be out trying to discredit Kepler and Newton because they did not know everything right away and get it completely right the first time. How dare there be an increase in what we know about a subject.

By the same token, when evolutionary theory first burst upon the scenes, the initial idea was that things proceeded in a smooth and continuous pattern. A became B which became C and it all happened in a very smooth and predicatble way.

But then we started digging up fossils. And what did we find? Well we found that things in the real world do not go in the order we stupid humans think they should. So, yes, over 130 years ago, since you are going back that far to get references, the logical thing to do seemed to be to put all of the horse fossils in one continuous line. Well as we dug up more horse fossils and fossils of other creatures, we learned that this just is not the case. Your 1870's straight line had 30 horses, right? Well by 1989 we had 43 different species of just the genus Equus. And I count at least 30 genera in the known hore sequence.

And you want to make it out like it is some sort of great problem that theories get modified as more data comes in. I take that back. You find quotes where scientists point out that the earliest notions of straight and continuous were found to be wrong as we got more specimens and found that is was actually bushy and jerky... YOu take these quotes and edit out the part where we improve our knowledge of what happened and make it appear that they were completely wrong.

But I go back to my analogy. We are not removing Kepler from our texbooks as a fraud because later people improved upon his ideas. By the same token, normal people see that even the original horse sequence got the endpoints right even if the path in the middle had to be changed as we got more samples. Only someone with an axe to grind pulls that example out and says that we should through the whole thing out because we learned something as we went along.

What would be the purpose of any research if we knew everything from the beginnig? How would we ever advance if we found it anathema to ever change our initial conceptions?

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's go through your list.

"1 - Different animals in each series."

You find this surprising? Over 30 general and I gave you over 40 known species in just 1 genus. For simplicity, let's say that there are only 50 fossil horses and you want to pick 30 of them to make a series. There are 47129212243960 different ways to do that. And you are surprised to find 20 different ways? Why don't you give us the 20 series and let's see just how different they are. I bet its trivial.

"2 - Imaginary, not real. The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three."

Let's just answer this with the part of the Simpson quote you cut out.

"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."

And that was over 50 years ago. Your reference sure is not very up to date.

"3 - Number of rib bones. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse."

I refer you back to the Simpson quote were he points out that there were many stops and starts in the evolution of the horse. SOmetimes in one direction, sometimes in another. Do you want to here make the claim that it is impossible change the number of ribs. If so, prove it. If not, then this objection falls flat.

"4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth between these two basic types. of teeth between these two basic types."

Nope. From Hyracotherium to the next animal, Orohippus, shows a number of changes in the teeth. The last premolar had begun to change shape to act more like an additional molar, giving Orohippus more grinding teeth for grazing. The teeth had also developed more pronounced crests, giving it the ability to gring tougher plant material.

The next creature, Epihippus, was now turning the next-to-last pre-molar into a molar now, too. Later, Miohippus began to grow an extra crest on its teeth. This became a defining characteristic of horses.

The changes continue, but that is enough to document the falseness of the claim.

"5 - Not from in-order strata."

Just because part of a population becomes a new species, this does not mean that all other members die. It is a branching bush, not a straight line.

"6 - Calling a badger a horse. The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa."

Look at the images of a hyrax and a Hyracotherium on this page. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html They are most certainly not the same creature. Read the whole page for anoth example of YE twisting of the facts to come up with this claim.

"7 - Horse series exists only in museums."

Yes, it appears from the fossils that the horse started evolving in North America and then spread across the Bearing Straight land bridge to most of the world and continued to evolve and migrate. Your problem with this is what exactly?

"8 - Each one distinct from others. There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record."

This is know as "moving the goalposts." Over thirty genera and I do not know how many species in each of this but you want to know what came between each of them. If you were given that, you would just ask for the intermediates between THOSE. It is well documented. Deal with it factually instead of distracting.

"9 - Bottom found at the top. Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis."

False. Not true. Document it if you really believe this. But here is a reference that disputes the claim and traces its origin. Quite an old lie, this is. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html

"10 - Gaps below as well as above. Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths."

Oh, you mean like Loxolophus, Tetraclaenodon, and Radinskya yupingae. Scientists will be very surprised to learn that these do not exist!

"11 - Recent ones below earlier ones. In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature."

The sequence is bushy. Just because a new species of genus evolves does not mean that the old one dies away. You are here bust we still have other apes and we have reptiles and we have fish.

"12 - Never found in consecutive strata. Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata."

And? They would have to all be stacked on top of each other for you to believe it? Did you not complain a few items up about how the horses had migrated across the world? If they migrated all over the world, you would not expect to find them all in one neat little stack.

"13 - Heavily keyed to size."

There was a general trend to larger, tes. But if you remember you SImpson quote, again, you will find that even this goes back and forth some. I fail to see you point.

"14 - Bones an inadequate basis. In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains."

Well it is a good thing that evolution is based on more than just the fossil record, eh?

Funny, you promised 15 and your list stops at 14.

 

[UTEOTW]

And now the quotes.

Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118

Yes, the horse sequence is not smooth and continuous. We all get that now. From your reference, you will see that we actually understood that by the early 1950's.


Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226.

Yes, the horse sequence is not smooth and continuous. We all get that now. From your reference, you will see that we actually understood that by the early 1950's.


L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82

Let me refute this quotation of Eldredge with his own words.

The dead horse that Sunderland and all other creationists beat is, of course, not stasis versus gradualsim, but the existence of anatomical intermediates, especially if they exist in perfect stratigraphic order. I am here to tell you that my predecessors had indeed unearthed and mounted a wonderful series of skeletons, beginning with the Eocene Hyracotherium (the so-called dawn horse), with its small size, four toes on the front feet, five on the back feet, shortened face, and generalized perisodactyl teeth suitable for browsing, not grazing. Climbing up the Tertiary stratigraphic column of the American West, we find the horses becoming progressively bigger, with fewer toes (modern horses have but one on each foot) and more comlicated teeth. The horses of the Pliocene are essentially modern,

This is not a made-up story. The fossils are real. They are in the proper order, and they are a spectacular example of anatomical intermediates found in the exact predicted sequence in the rock record. They are every creationist's nightmare.

No, horse evolution was not in the straight-line, gradualistic mode. But to state or imply that the horse evolution exhibit was somehow arranged to support an evolutionary story - to imply that the old museum curators deliberately misled the public by arranging the order of these horse fossils as they saw fit - is a damn lie.

from his book The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism

So Eldredge even calls this misrepresentation a "lie." What he found "lamentable" was a display with only four specimens that implied the old striaght line model, not the actual horse sequence.


Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31

This is a lie. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_equus.html


The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96

Yes, the horse sequence is not smooth and continuous. We all get that now. From your reference, you will see that we actually understood that by the early 1950's.


G.G. Simpson

Yes, we have shown that when you see the entire quote that he is against the idea of smooth, continuous evolution and not the horse sequence.


George G. Simpson

Your quote gives you the answer. The sequence is bushy and jerky.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

An example of this is the variable speed of light and the effects of Day 1 and Day if viewed at the event horizon of creation. This is an excellent proposal by some Bible believing Christians to explain how it is that from the POV of earth creation LOOKS like 7 days but in real time - in space it is billions of years.

Faster than light theories have indeed been proposed as a viable alternative to a universe as old as the light that came from the distant galaxies, but all such models are fundamentally flawed. It is possible to prove that light has not accelerated to the degree necessary to make such a pipe dream theory come true.

Of course, one must keep in mind several concepts at once, so the proof is not understandable to all.

First of all, realize you must assert that the light from the very nearest galaxy, the great galaxy of andromeda, in order to arrive upon our eyes withing a 6 to 10 thousand year history, would have had to travel over a thousand times faster and more when it started.

That means that the light started out at over a thousand times faster and then slowed down before it reached our eyes.

Such a slow down would mean there would be things we would observe that we do not deserve.

It is directly comparable to slowing down a tape playing on a tape recorder or an old fashioned record turning on a record player. The instant they slow down, everyone listening to the music is aware of the change.

Anything seen by slowed down light would require we see it moving slower. Do we see things moving slower by a factor of a thousand in the great galaxy of andromeda? Cepheid variables wax and wane in the normal patterns. Xray binary stars have the same general orbital times as the nearer xray binary stars in our own galaxy. The rotation of the galaxy procedes at the full expected speed, with no sight of being slowed by a thousand fold.

And when we consider the far more distant galaxies, the problem for the light change theory worsens geometrically. Light speed changes required go beyond a million fold. Galaxy rotation rates are very easy to measure and guess what - they stay about the same all the way to the edge of the universe, no slowing as you go out further and further.

This means light has pretty much been at the same speed all the way back to the farthest galaxies, of course, and that means we really are seeing stars in them that were there millions and even billions of years ago, simply because of how long the light takes to get here.

This has nothing to do with biological evolution, of course, but you did bring up the subject . . .

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's expose a bit more "junk" from the YE camp.

Since Bob has been making extensive use of quote mining, I will expose some more dishonest examples of such.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes24.html
http://evolution-facts.org/a17c.htm

"There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods." - Frank M. Carpenter, "Fossil Insects," Insects (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

First, I shall point out the date, 1952. We have learned a few things since then, but I'll get back to that. I want to give a fuller quote now.

"A detailed study of the geological history of the insects, which I have only sketched, yields evidence of certain progressive changes in structure and development which confirm conclusions on insect evolution reached by morphological and embryological investigations. Although this is still a highly controversial subject, we have enough evidence at hand, derived from these three sources, to indicate the main steps in insect evolution. There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods. On the other hand, morphological and embryological studies carried out mainly since 1935 have pointed to the probable origin of the insects from some terrestrial arthropod, related to the existing Symphyla. The time of that origin is pure conjecture, but judging from the fossil record we can only conclude that it was at least as far back as the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian)."

I guess the original quoter missed that part about other studies. Maybe not, they excised it so they may have actually known that it went against their case.

So, in context, the quote shows that the author beliefs that insects evolved but acknowledges that the origins of the insects is not known from the fossil record. Well good thing that we have found a few more fossils in the last 50 years. We know have fossil insects no just into the Mississippian as the author speculated, but also back into Devonian and even Silurian.

I wonder if the quoter bothered to check a 50 year old quote to see if anything had changed? I guess not. Which is the point. Notice how many of the quotes are from decades and decades ago before many of the known fossils were discovered, before the emergence of genetics as a tool for evolutionary study, and when many ideas about how evolution proceeds were changing as new data came in.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] BobRyan: there are just four points that need to be made in reply to your post

1) It would be literally impossible to assemble a series over millions of years without gaps in it. No museum could handle that many fossils. Nor could fossilization possibly fossilize so many fossils. But we can produce examples where the gaps are pretty small and that has been done with the horses.

Paul - it is the EVOLUTIONISTS that are confessing that the horse series is bogus and in fact an embarrassment. Re-read the details and get back to me.

Paul said --
2) Just because species a splits off to species b does not mean species a HAS TO DIE OFF. Think about wolves and dogs - wolves are still with us. So yes, a MODERN WOLF could serve as an example of the ancestral species to A DOG FROM A THOUSAND YEARS AGO. Especially if fossilization is a rare event and you're lucky to have a wolf fossil at all.

Dogs and wolves are NOT an example of evolution. They are every day examples of variation WITHIN a kind. Lizards -to- birds ?? YES that would be EVOLUTION.

Using NOT-Evolution to prove "evolution" does not work.

Paul said --
4) Not one species in a thousand is represented in the fossil record. Of these, some of them have hundreds and hundreds of fossil examples, others only have a few. This is because fossilization is extremely rare and discovery of fossils is a chancy thing.

Actually it is surprising that ANY intermediate form is "lacking" SINCE evolutionists (like UTEOTW) have retreated back to the level of claiming that "TRUE C" is in fact an "INTERMEDIATE BETWEEN" a "TRUE A" and a "TRUE C". (Check out the Archaeopteryx thread)

PAUL --
There is no reason at all in the creationist world view to expect a fossil to be an intermediary.

Indeed. And when the day comes that evolutionists stop giving "TRUE C" as an intermediate BETWEEN "TRUE C" and "TRUE A" we may get somewhere.

Do you think?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
I now see why you are so insistent on using the conference to call archy a bird only. Even after I show that the very authors you cite in the proceedings of the very conference you cite were telling how archy is a transitional. Your reference FLAT OUT LIES by claiming otherwise.

I have shown you what they said and it was that this creature was a transitional. They lie about that and you repeat it. The disturbing thing is that you have continued to repeat it even after their actual opinion on the matter has been shown to you.

"Again" you pretend that when atheist evolutionist claim to STILL believe in evolutionism - EVEN though they ADMIT to a glaring problem in evolution -- this is a kind of "proof" of something in your favor.

"Again" you ignore the problem of being stuck with "TRUE C" as the "intermediate BETWEEN" TRUE C and TRUE A -- and continue with your blinders-on montra of "yes but TRUE C is all we have as a TRANSITION BETWEEN true A and TRUE C".

UTEOTW
Not just once, but many times have you repeated it after I used the very conference proceedings and the very authors you cited to show that they thought it was a transitional at that conference.

Actually it has been SHOWN that they did NOT conclude that Archaeopteryx was the ancestor of birds. In fact they admit that birds PRE-DATE Archaeopteryx.

It has been SHOWN that they considered Archy to be TRUE C -- a "TRUE BIRD".

It has been SHOWN that DESPITE these problems they CLING to the evolution of bird "story" just as you claim.

None of that is disputed.

Get it?

Yet?

Why do you insist on calling this a "lie" when in fact NONE of it is refuted AT ALL by anything you have posted? What is your point?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
By your logic, however, we should all be out trying to discredit Kepler and Newton because they did not know everything right away and get it completely right the first time. How dare there be an increase in what we know about a subject.

That is an interesting story - nice for misdirection but not really helpful in the case of the horse series. Notice the strong statements OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS about it "never existing in nature" AT ALL.

These are evolutionists THAT DO "believe" in the evolution of the horse but that CAN NOT use that series. IT pretends to SHOW something that evolutionists NOW know is not true. YOU want to KEEP that series as if "it is still true when we wrap the right story around it".

The problem is - the SERIES IS IN ERROR. The VERY THING you want to KEEP is in error - and your claim that "surrounding it with a better bandaide story should help" does not work at all.

This is the level of defense that you have gone to for evolutionism - a level that EVEN the atheists will not jump to.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I see you are still making the false claim that the conference on Archaeopteryx claimed that it was just a bird and not a transitional. I have already shown you this claim is false. Remember?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2740/8.html#000116

But you keep making the same false claim after the truth is pointed out to you, so maybe I need to remind you. First the "salient" part. You cited the authors Dodson and Howgate at the International Archaeopteryx Conference. Well let me first pull out the part where I tell you what Dodson himself, you know your reference, had to say at this very conference, you know the one you say claims that Archaeopteryx was just a bird.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

Now, it seems strange to me that someone you have cited as saying at a conference that Archaeopteryx was just a bird would be making a case at that conference that it was in fact a transitional. I feel that it was a dishonest claim to begin with. The first time you made it, I can fault your source. The subsequent times i fault you since you have been given the truth.

Anyhow, let's look back at what else the authors you cited as claiming that Archaeopteryx was a bird and not a transitional had to say.

Nope. THis is where I show that a YECer never lets the truth get in the way of a good argument.

BTW, how do you know they were all atheists? I would bet there were quite a few Christian men there. Or is everyone who disagrees with you an atheist?

I suspected that there was more to the story than you are alledging. This is not a hard prediction to make based on your track record and that of YECers in general. So I challenged you to show us that the folks you cited really thought that archy was just a bird. It should be plain to all that your purpose in quoting the way you did was to make the case that it is only a bird and not a transitional.

I think that this was dishonest. You cited Dodson and Howgate. I asked you for evidence that these guys thought that archy was only a bird and not a transitional to support your assertion. I say that to not do so shows that you know what they were really saying and chose to assert that they were saying something else regardless. You did not support your assertion and instead choose to merely repeat yourself. So I'll do your work for you. But you will not like the results.

Why do we not first make a direct quote from Howgate?

Howgate, M. E. 1984. The teeth of Archaeopteryx and a reinterpretation of the Eichstätt specimen. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82: 159-175.

"However, these authors present a decidedly ambiguous reconstruction of the Archaeopteryx ankle; it shows the ascending process associated equally with the astragalus and calcaneum. The Archaeopteryx ankle depicted by Martin et al. (1990, fig. 1G) seems, in fact, to be structurally intermediate between the theropod ankle and the neornithiform bird ankle."

Well, it seems that he may have thought it was a transitional after all.

Then I came across your very reference.

Dodson, P., 1985, International Archaeopteryx Conference: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 5, p. 177-9.

In here, Dodson lists over 20 specific shared characteristics between Archeopteryx and specifically coelurosaur theropods. I think he was making a case for archy being a transitional, don't you?

Let me give you another reference from Dodson.

Barsbold, R.; Maryanska, T. & Osmolska, H. 1990. Oviraptorosauria. In: Weishampel, D. B.; Dodson, P. & Osmolska, H. (eds.), The Dinosauria. 249-258. University of California Press, Berkeley.

In this reference, the gentleman you cite discusses how some dinosaurs, such as Oviraptor and Ingenia, have furculas like birds as further evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You might want to see this reference of his.

CHINSAMY A., CHIAPPE L. & DODSON P. (1994): Growth rings in mesozoic avian bones: physiological implications for basal birds. J.Vert.Paleont. 14(3, Suppl.): 21A

You will notice the word "basal" in the title. This means that he is studying the first birds and recognizes and accepts that they evolved.

One more reference for you.

Smith, J.B., You H., and P. Dodson. 1998. The age of the Sihetun quarry in Liaoning Province, China and its implications for early bird evolution. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program, 30(7):38A.

See the phrase "bird evolution" in the title? You still assert that he thinks archy is just a bird and not a transitional? This paper ties the specimens found in Liaoning with other bird transitionals.

Now do you see why I doubted you? Now do you see that the people you quote as saying archy was just a bird really say that it was actually a transitional?

SO would you please quit making tha false claim? You cannot claim ignorance any longer.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
An example of this is the variable speed of light and the effects of Day 1 and Day if viewed at the event horizon of creation. This is an excellent proposal by some Bible believing Christians to explain how it is that from the POV of earth creation LOOKS like 7 days but in real time - in space it is billions of years.

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Faster than light theories have indeed been proposed as a viable alternative to a universe as old as the light that came from the distant galaxies, but all such models are fundamentally flawed. It is possible to prove that light has not accelerated to the degree necessary to make such a pipe dream theory come true.

My entire point is that when the Creationist argument goes to a "story basis" such as the one above - THEN you both are on a level playing field and your counter-story game works pretty good as a "possible alternative" rather than a positive embarrassment for evolutionism.

I simply "contrast" that with the more direct approach that my posts are taking. My method is to ignore that story-vs-story model and avoid the "level playing field" problem.

I prefer to stick with the proven flaws of evolutionism and show in your every response that your position "requires" that you ignore the glaring problem and attempt some thinly veiled misdirection.

The result is that it "will do" for any evolutionist reading - but anyone reading with any objectivity at all sees your problem clearly - AS your problem is SEEN in the Atheist Evolutionist statements THEMSELVES.

As I said before -- this is a level of objectivity which you have yet to even attempt.

That too - is evident and obvious to the one that is not "already a believer in evolutionism".

In Christ,

Bob