Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

[Paul of Eugene]

BR, the only "problem" for evolutionists in the horse series is that there are so many species to pick from we can't tell for sure which are the side branches and which are the direct lineages!
Hardly an argument against evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

BR, tell me what you think the horses on the ark had going for them in terms of shin splints. Were they are small as current horses or were they still sticking out like the ones on this fossil?

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

We have previously been over almost all of these quotes before. We have had whole threads on these quotes. It is a shame that you continue to drag out the same old, tired, dishonest quotes.

It is apparent that you have not learned that the commandment against bearing false witness applies even if you think that you are doing the Lord's work.

The truth, that is the CONTEXT, behind most of your quotes is quite easy for the average user to find so I will not bother going through all of them again. It is apparent that you lack the ability to adapt by getting rid of the lies in your arguments. So there is no need to show you the context again. You simply refuse to learn.

But I will point out one thing. You have presented not a single fact to refute any of the evidence for the evolution of the horse in a page and a half of disourse! Nothing but dishonest, out of context quotes.

You have not refuted the very rich fossil record for horse evolution. In fact, if one examines several of your quotes closely, he will find that even your quotes drive home the richness of the fossil record for horses.

You have not a single fact to refute the evidence from biogeography for horse evolution.

You have not a single fact to refute the evidence from the chronology of the fossils for horse evolution.

You have not a single fact to refute the evidence from homologies for horse evolution.

You have not a single fact to refute the evidence from genetics for horse evolution.

You have not a single fact to refute the evidence from vestiges for horse evolution.

You have not a single fact to refute the evidence from atavisms for horse evolution.

To quote the Bard, your pages of blather are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You have no facts, no argument to make. Just bad quotes and the inability to learn when they are put into context for you.

 

[BobRyan]

Having failed to refute any of the quotes and using very poor reasoning of the form "You can't quote an evolutionist who confesses to a gap or even a blunder IF that source does not ALSO become a Christian" -- you simply resort to the tried and true methods of atheism - "revisionist history" and ad hominem fact-devoid responses like the one above.

How "suprising" UTEOTW. I never would have guessed!!

But here ARE facts that can not be refuted.

#1. You have not responded to a SINGLE point made by your OWN Atheist Darwinist icons as they have been posted here!!

#2. You have addressed NOT ONE of the blunders of the horse series listed here and ADMITTED to by your own atheist masters.

#3. Having failed to actually respond with substance to any of this you use Ad hominem as the only "content" in your post.

#4. You have yet to even weakly show the same level of objectivity that I show when I post your own atheist sources confessing to blunders in their atheist model that you gloss over in your every post.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here is some "data" that may help.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"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[/b]."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.
)

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”!!)

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.

"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.

</font>[/QUOTE]Already posted here "I know" but believers in atheist darwinist evolutionism think that "glossing over and ignoring inconvenient facts" makes those facts "go away".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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

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

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

There is nothing to actually refute in your quotes. Remember how in my last post that I said that "if one examines several of your quotes closely, he will find that even your quotes drive home the richness of the fossil record for horses?"

Well, these three quotes that you have repeated here all fall into that category. THese quotes of yours undermine your very position!

Let's see, your first quote is from Westoll. What he says is "all wrong" is the early view of straight line evolution, also known as orthogenesis. Surely you remember us going over and over and over this. It is the basis for your mostest favoritest quote of them all, BUt we will get to that in a moment. Horse evolution was not a gradual A to B to C kind of thing. It was a very chaotic, jerky, branching process. But this only became apparent after more fossils were collected.

This becomes even more apparent when we look at your second quote. I cannot for the life of me understand how you think that this is a quote that supports you. This quote spells out the very process of what happened for us. When there were few fossils, straightline evolution was proposed. But as the record became richer and richer, the orthogenetic view was observed to be incorrect and a whole "net" of horses was found to have existed.

The third quote refers to the same thing as the second. Namely that there was an old museum display that still showed the old orthogenetic view. Again, this quote confirms the increasing richness of the horse fossil record.

And then you final quote. YOur favorite quote to mangle, distort and twist. Let's just look at the quote in context. AGAIN.

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…)

I bolded for you a bunch of stuff in the middle where he talks about trends in the evolution of the horse. Very funny that the quote that you use to claim that the horse did not evolve talks about many details of the horse's evolution.

I have presented for you the context of this quote innummerable times. Yet you continue to lie to us about the quote. I can only make one conclusion from this. I'll leave it unspoken in the interest of decency.

So we see once again that your quotes are full of sound and fury but that they actually signify nothing at all. You still have not presented a single fact to back up your claim. YOu still have not disputed piece of evidence for horse evolution.

And you never will be able to do so.

 

[BobRyan]

quote that you use to claim that the horse did not evolve

This is the typcial vaccuous revisionism that the atheist darwinian model must practice to defend itself against ITS OWN atheist icons admitting to its blatant blunders!!

Notice (as I already pointed out) the mind numbing response is "predictably" of the form "You can not expose our atheist darwinian blunders IF the atheist you are quoting is not a creationist after admitting to the blunder"!!

I just can't believe this stuff passes for logic with you guys!

Truly your atheist darwinist views have lead to what one evolutionist called "anti-knowledge". I can't imagine any other topic on this board where the response would take the form you consistently use above!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You still have not presented a single fact to back up your claim.

But here ARE facts that can not be refuted.

#1. You have not responded to a SINGLE point made by your OWN Atheist Darwinist icons as they have been posted here!!

#2. You have addressed NOT ONE of the blunders of the horse series listed here and ADMITTED to by your own atheist masters.

#3. Having failed to actually respond with substance to any of this you use Ad hominem as the only "content" in your post.

#4. You have yet to even weakly show the same level of objectivity that I show when I post your own atheist sources confessing to blunders in their atheist model that you gloss over in your every post.

#5. your OWN atheist icons ADMIT to what you blindly deny - that the sequence they presented "NEVER HAPPENED".

Your attempts to whine about this in the form of "yes but after admitting to that gross blunder they failed to then become creationists - so please don't expose that blunder any more" is so fact challenged and devoid of reason I am shocked that you resort to it time after time after time only to have me expose your tactics each time you do it!!

If nothing else - pride alone should stop you from stooping to that level.

I just know you can do better!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
BR, the only "problem" for evolutionists in the horse series is that there are so many species to pick from we can't tell for sure which are the side branches

What is hard to fathom is why it takes so many weeks for believers in the doctrines of atheist darwinist evolutionism to respond to facts when it comes to their own recorded blunders.

In the case your OWN atheist icons are admitting that "IT is lamentable" that they published the bogus sequence and that the sequence "never HAPPENED" in nature.

You "spin that around to" (This sequenced HAPPENED and so did so many others that we just failed to select the right sequence as the primary one).

Your need to hold on to a failed and dumped sequence is amazingly "transparent" in your "all for atheist dawrinian doctrines" approach.

But to your credit you do at least "come up with a story" that tries to address the question of the OP. HOW could they INVENT something that they now claim "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE"?

What is the Atheist darwinian "principle" that makes that "acceptable" not only to atheists but also to those on this board that join in league with atheist Darwinist doctrines?

you seem to claim "well first of all we ignore the facts" as in "We ignore when our own atheist icons say that this NEVER actually HAPPENED in nature and pretend that not only did THIS sequence happen but also so many OTHERS happened that we just had a hard time picking the right sequence as the primary one".

OR Did you mean to say "We have NONE that actually HAPPENED - we have to guess which one HAPPENED - but our approach is it MAKE STUFF UP out of the bits and pieces that we find. It is hard to know when you are making up a story that will be debunked QUICKLY verses making one up that is harder to debunk".

Maybe that was your intent - in which case you have actually "come to the point" - and I would offer my congratulations rather than criticism!

just let me know which one you are selecting.

in Christ

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
All wrong isn't an accurate represetation of the so-called "problem".

I see - so your own atheist darwinist icons are "wrong" when they confess that point!!

How "interesting". I am amazed that you would agree to differ with them and cling to the failed view "anyway".

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.

I see - soooo many sequence lines that DID HAPPEN it is hard to tell which one is the shortest and DIRECT one vs all the other ones that DID HAPPEN!???

So when your OWN atheist icons say it "never happened in nature" and when they say the facts are "STASIS rather than the smooth transitional lines they imagined" and when they say it is lamentable that it was "PRESENTED AS IF IT WAS FACT" and when they say "That is lamentable" that the text books published this NON FACT you "cling to it anyway"!!??

You are actually willing to swallow the coolaide and say "NAWWWW I still hold to that old story AS WELL as the new ones - it is just that the old story line is not as DIRECT as the new ones. Not the shortest path"!!??

How many times do I have to say that ...

I think you have gone out far enough on that limb now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

What part of this do you not understand?

The authors are saying that the orthogenetic view that was prevelent way back in the later part of the 19th century was wrong. When there were few fossils, they were put into a straight line and a gradual, steady process was assumed.

All of these guys that you are quoting are pointing out that orthogenesis was wrong. Not horse evolution!

All of these authors are pointing out that once the fossil record for horses was fleshed out that a phylogenetic view emerged. That is right there in your quotes!

All of these authors are saying that the horse evolved and that the fossil record for the horses is so rich that we can trace all of the jerky trends in changes in various body parts in great detail.

None of these authors are saying that the horse did not evolve.

All of this has been pointed out to you many times in the past. Yet you continue to repeat the same lies. You do not even bother to try and justify your lies by perhaps showing that the fake opinions that you imply with your dishonest quotes might have some basis.

That you continue to peddle these lies after the truth has been pointed out so many times is perhaps the best example that can be provided of the pure, utter, dark, black evilness that is the lie of YECism!

YEC takes what are otherwise honest people in most cases, and blinds them and fools them into thinking that the most dispicable and dishonest of tactics are allowable so long as you think you are doing the Lord's work. YEC makes liars out of good people.

YEC destroys the witness of Christians to the unbelievers by making them think that we must be deliberately dishonest in order to prop up our beliefs. YEC destroys the faith of believers.

YEC is one of the best tools of Satan to work against God's people.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The authors are saying that the orthogenetic view that was prevelent way back in the later part of the 19th century was wrong.

Wrong "again".

IF all they said was "We had some theoretical scenarios, some guesswork, some pie in the sky imagination that we had hoped to find in nature but as we discovered the actual evidence in nature we found that our theory needed correction" I would have had nothing to expose where they ADMIT they DID present fossil finds IN NATURE and ARRANGED a false sequence "PRESENTED AS THOUGH IT WERE FACT" !!!.

Each time you gloss over the details and practice hopeful revisionism you simply give me the opportunity recall the inconvenient facts that are getting in the way of your latest "story".

You seem inclined to try "story after story" -- and that is what I CLAIM is the heart and soul of your atheist darwinian model.

WHY IN THE WORLD would any scientist say it is "LAMENTABLE" that a THEORY existed, a body of guesswork that was later proven to be false???!!

Answer -- THEY WOULD NOT!! (Duh!!)

That is how it is SUPPOSED to work!!

The reason in THIS specific case they are saying "WHAT we presented as fact NEVER HAPPENED" is that IT WAS PRESENTED as FACT in the form of ACTUAL FOSSILS arranged in a PRINTED and PUBLISHED sequence!!

In other words they did not just have a theory WAITING for some finds in nature - they had FINDS IN NATURE arranged to FIT a theory!! They MADE IT UP as if nature had PROVEN their "story"!! In fact they boldly claimed that what they made up is the best DEMONSTRATABLE example of atheist darwinist evolutionism found IN NATURE!!

How can you keep throwing yourself into direct contradiction to your own atheist darwinist icons??!!

Do you like having me expose the way your revisionist efforts do not fit any of the details already listed so far??

I mean - "I like it" admittedly - but why do you seem to enjoy it so much??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
In other words they did not just have a theory WAITING for some finds in nature - they had FINDS IN NATURE arranged to FIT a theory!! They MADE IT UP as if nature had PROVEN their "story"!! In fact they boldly claimed that what they made up is the best DEMONSTRATABLE example of atheist darwinist evolutionism found IN NATURE!!

I like that quote --

you then try revisionist history as if they only presented QUESSWORK hoping to one day find it in nature. Just a "theoretical view" that they were claiming to seek actaul data, evidence in nature to demonstrate - but never found.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The authors are saying that the orthogenetic view that was prevelent way back in the later part of the 19th century was wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong "again". Revisionism "again"

 

[BobRyan]

None of these authors are saying that the horse did not evolve.

What a nice piece of misdirection.

Do you have any quote at all from me saying that atheist darwinist evolutionists have given up the idea of evolutionism or have given up their hopeful wishful thinking that in some way the horse evolved?!!

I never claimed such a thing!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Notice (as I already pointed out) the mind numbing response is "predictably" of the form "You can not expose our atheist darwinian blunders IF the atheist you are quoting is not a creationist after admitting to the blunder"!!

I just can't believe this stuff passes for logic with you guys!

I have never claimed that after one story is debunked after being told "as though it were fact" with findings in nature "ARRANGED to fit the story" that the same atheist darwinian evolutionist would not latch on to " a new story told as though it were fact" with findings in nature "arranged to fit the story".

The evolutionists here seem to think that this "story hopping" standard within their body of pseudoscience is an argument against exposing what Atheist Darwinians THEMSELVES admit to as blunders in the previous line of stories.

How fascinating!!

In Christ,

Bob

[ February 16, 2006, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

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.’

". . [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 exampleof a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

 

[UTEOTW]

Enjoy your delusions. You really are not worth further discussion on this.

You have deluded yourself into believing your own lies. Sad. But therein lies the evil danger of YECism. We see now why it must be stamped out.

BTW, the astute reader should have observed that Bob has yet to actually show any facts. He confuses misleading, out of context, dishonest quotes for real debate. Unfortunately for him, he cannot get past the fact that the authors he quotes do not agree with the manner in which he presents their quotes. Just look at all the backpeddling in his last few posts trying to escape that fact. He knows that he is mischaracterizing them. BUt he justifies a lie for God as excusable.

And that is where Satan uses YECism to defeat Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

`What - another fact devoid post UTEOTW -- are you going for a record here? Trying to beat your personnal best?!!

Oh well - that just means we have to go BACK to the facts - BACK to the details you are so anxious to continually gloss over and avoid.

WOW that sure won't be much fun for me! -- heh heh!

 

[BobRyan]

In all of UTEOTW's ducking and doding the points made in this thread - he has left these facts totally unchallenged!!

How "surprising".

You still have not presented a single fact to back up your claim.

But here ARE facts that can not be refuted.

#1. You have not responded to a SINGLE point made by your OWN Atheist Darwinist icons as they have been posted here!!

#2. You have addressed NOT ONE of the blunders of the horse series listed here and ADMITTED to by your own atheist masters.

#3. Having failed to actually respond with substance to any of this you use Ad hominem as the only "content" in your post.

#4. You have yet to even weakly show the same level of objectivity that I show when I post your own atheist sources confessing to blunders in their atheist model that you gloss over in your every post.

#5. your OWN atheist icons ADMIT to what you blindly deny - that the sequence they presented "NEVER HAPPENED".

Your attempts to whine about this in the form of "yes but after admitting to that gross blunder they failed to then become creationists - so please don't expose that blunder any more" is so fact challenged and devoid of reason I am shocked that you resort to it time after time after time only to have me expose your tactics each time you do it!!

If nothing else - pride alone should stop you from stooping to that level.

I just know you can do better!

[/QUOTE]