Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

[BobRyan]

In UTEOTW's "Ceaseless pursuit of revisionism" and trying to disguise his own imagination as "historic fact" he has not only left all the statements on this thread unchallenged (with anything of substance) but has also managed to define "dishonest" as being equal to ANY quote of an atheist dawrinist icon that is admitting to the blunders of the past as they actually happened in the religious system we know today as Darwinian Evolutionism!

What a hoot!

He proves the point of this thread with his every post. This ia a "post mortem" on the debunked horse series called "LAMENTABLE" and said to have been "presented AS IF IT WERE FACT" by its own atheist darwinist promoters!!

So what is the "lesson learned" in that post mortem for UTEOTW??!!

ANSWER: He is still too busy RELIVING faith in that debunked sequence to even HAVE a post mortem on it!!

What a surprise brethren!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

So Bob, is it the case that you have been deluded into thinking that 2+2=5 or is it the case that you have deluded yourself that saying the 2+2=5 is OK so long as you think that you are on God's side?

You say that none of your quotes have been challenged when in fact it has been pointed out that there is nothing to challenge. NONE of these authors are saying that horses did not evolve. NOT A SINGLE ONE!

What they are saying never existed or never happened or was wrong was the 19th century ideas on horse evolution based on a very limited sample of fossils. They ALL agree that the 21st century version of horse evolution is based on a MUCH richer set of fossils than what was available over 100 years ago and that the modern view has supplanted the earlier view.

What is lamentable about the museum display is merely that it still showed the older view of horse evolution when much better data was available.

So what you have done is to erect a strawman based on the 19th century view of horse evolution. You then knock over your strawman by using quotes from scientists telling us that the 19th century view was wrong as they tell us why the 21st century view is correct.

Having knocked over your strawman based on something that no one today even advocates, you have utterly failed to present even a single fact on why the MODERN horse sequence is wrong.

You have failed to give a single reason why we should not accept the opinions of the very poeple you are quoting, in the context of the very quotes that you are making, as to to correctness of the modern horse sequence.

You have utterly failed to produce a single fact or quote relevent to the items I previously listed as supporting horse evolution (the modern fossils, homologies, atavisms, vestiges, biogeography, genetics, etc.).

And since quoting is your game, you have failed to produce even a single quote that deal with the modern horse sequence.

You knock over a strawman, refuse to deal with the real facts of the case and declare yourself the winner. Delusional!

Not to mention that you continue to try and build your case using the discredited, dishonest, evil method of quoting out of context in a way that changes the meaning of the quote and falsely appears to make the speaker have opinions which he in reality does not. We have a commandment against bearing false witness. You cannot ignore it just because you mistakenly think that you are on God's side of the argument. Have you no shame!

You are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[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]

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that statement above --


"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.

UTEOTW's best cogent and insightful response to "Details"

So Bob, is it the case that you have been deluded into thinking that 2+2=5

How can believers in atheist darwinist evolutinism be satisified with such vaccuous responses to "details" and "inconvenient facts"??

I just know you can do better.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here UTEOTW seems to be totally befuddled and lost on the stated question of the OP and title of this thread.

UTEOTW
you have utterly failed to present even a single fact on why the MODERN horse sequence is wrong.

Knock! Knock! Hello UTEOTW - this thread is on the POST MORTEM of the debunked horse series that is the SUBSTANCE AND CONTENT of all the atheist darwinist quotes provided here!!

Surely you "get that" by now!!

I have not mentioned the space shuttle or OTHER stories about horseys! Get it? We are talking specifically about the story highlighted in the subject.

What a great thing if you could bring yourself to respond to the "lessons learned" in the course of that debunked storyline from our atheist darwinist friends.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW -
You say that none of your quotes have been challenged when in fact it has been pointed out that there is nothing to challenge. NONE of these authors are saying that horses did not evolve. NOT A SINGLE ONE!

Turning a blind eye to the details here is not serving your argument UTEOTW.

AS ARLEADY STATED your pointless misdirection that takes the form "NO BLUNDER in atheist darwinist evolutionism that is ADMITTED by the atheist darwinists may be quoted IF THAT atheist does not ALSO BECOME A CHRISTIAN creationist after admitting to the blunder!!" - is too silly of a non-response to be taken seriously.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/2.html#000027

Why is this concept so difficult for you? Why do you keep trying it time after time after time AS IF anyone could take that form of response seriously?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Going back to the "lamentable" start of the "lamentable" series known as "the horse series".

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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"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.

"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 above quote says "Reconstructed IN an evolutionary series"!! That is "a nice way to put it" friends.

He in fact "ARRANGED the fossils" into an "artifact" of science! Did HE KNOW he had contrived an arrangement to FIT the story that atheist darwinian evolutionism 'wants to tell'? Yes!!

Did He KNOW He was ARRANGING? YES!

Did He KNOW He was NOT telling the audience "This is simply a contrived arrangement to fit a story that I would like to tell"? YES!!

He knew this FROM THE START!!

In science we try to DISCOVER that we are wrong and need to make a correction. So what did we DISCOVER to call what he was doing "lamentable"?

Think about it. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[UTEOTW]

Oh Bob

You still cannot deal with the fact that the only thing that your quotes discredit is a view of horse evolution that has been debunked by scientists themselves since the early part of the LAST century.

YOu have no ability at all to deal with the modern horse sysnthesis.

So keep living your delusion. Keep debunking a strawman. For you have no hope of making a case against the modern horse sequence.

And keep telling those lies. You are doing an excellent job of discrediting YECism all on your own.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

You still cannot deal with the fact that the only thing that your quotes discredit is a view of horse evolution that has been debunked by scientists themselves since the early part of the LAST century.

#1. The comment on "Lamentable" was made in the 1980's -- is it your claim that this is "100 years ago"??

If so - you have glossed over "Wayyy too many details".

#2. The whole point of this thread is to take that debunked horse series example and do a "post mortem on it". SHOW the lessons learned. DISCOVER how it came into being.

You have spent so much time defending it - you can not see the forrest for the trees here.

YOu have no ability at all to deal with the modern horse sysnthesis.

Again - simply bogus misdirection.

I have not addressed the space shuttle or DNA or "other stories about horseys" here.

Try to stay on topic.

The OP and the title has to do with taking the "inconvenient details" posted here and learning from the debunked example.

Do you really think you are 'saying something' when you finally admit that the horse series refrenced here was DEBUNKED??!!

That is "A GIVEN" friend. The point of the thread is to evaluate the LESSONS LEARNED!

To look at the PROCESS and mechanism by which the debunked series CAME INTO BEING!

I can't believe your devotion to vaccuous ad hominem attacks prevents you from "Seeing the details" in post after post after post.

UTEOTW

So keep living your delusion...

And keep telling those lies... (obligatory ad hominem deleted here)

Your every post simply exposes the fact that the subject matter of this thread seems to be beyond what your beliefs will allow you to "read".

UTEOTW
For you have no hope of making a case against the modern horse sequence.

I have repeatedly stated that the "POST MORTEM" on the debunked horse series is STAYING ON TOPIC rather than diverting over to some "other topic" though you seem to desperately "NEED it"!

Why is this concept so difficult for you UTEOTW.

This persistence of yours in failing to read the "inconvenient details here" is being exposed in your every post.

I Just know you can do better.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hint for the true believers in atheist darwinianism -- try to read the post below and pay attention to what it actually says.

See if you don't find some actual "details" to respond to as these atheist darwinist icons discuss the topic of this particular thread.

Try not to "blame me" for what THEY say as you seeking to distance yourself from your ad hominem tactics so far.

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]

 

[BobRyan]

The fact that your own atheist darwinist icons can so freely discuss this blunder of the past should be a great encouragement to the fox-hole defensive-minded evolutionists here who have been circling the wagons and glossing over details so far.

Try to reach out and embrace at least as much truth as these atheists are doing in public!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
...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...

YEC makes liars out of good people.

YEC destroys the witness of Christians...

YEC destroys the faith of believers...

YEC is one of the best tools of Satan...

Blah blah blah UTEOTW! More of the same nonsense rather than staying on topic, holding focus, responding cogently to the points made by ATHEIST darwinists as cited here and paying attenion to the task at hand which is to outline "LESSONS LEARNED" from the debunked horse series that even YOU admit the atheist icons are debunking!!

I have an idea - why not join the discussion instead of doing that diatribe thing over and over.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I have an idea - why not join the discussion instead of doing that diatribe thing over and over.

You know how Jesus said that thing about taking the beam out of your own eye before poking at the mote in someone else's eye?

 

[UTEOTW]

Let's try this.

Can you tell me a single of your out of context, dishonest quotes that addresses the modern horse sequence and not the old orthogentic view that has been supplanted.

Thus far all of your quotes from the "never existed" to the "lamentable" all discuss the ancient view of horse evolution to which no one subscribes and to which they have not subscribed for several decades.

You cannot do so. You have no evidence relating to the modern evidence (the modern fossils, homologies, atavisms, vestiges, biogeography, genetics, etc.).

So keep living in your delusion that by dubunking a strawman than you have accomplished something.

And keep living in your delusion that you do not have to deal with the fact that even in the quotes you give us, the authors are talking about how good the evidence is for the modern sequence.

Just keep repeating yourself. Keep giving your distorted quotes. Keeping destroying a strawman to which no one subscribes.

And as you do so, remember that your inability to deal with the modern sequence become ever more apparent. You have already hung yourself wit the rope you have been handed. Let's see if you keep digging your hole until it is deep enough to bury you.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let's try this.

Can you tell me a single of your out of context, dishonest quotes that addresses the modern horse sequence and not the old..

Let's try this again.

Please read the thread title and the OP.

Do you see them yet?

Good.

(note my confidence that you followed that)

Now notice that this is a "post mortem" on that debunked horse sequence.

Did you see that "detail"? Yet?

(At this point I have no idea if you are following this or not. This point has been difficult for you so far.)

Thus far all of your quotes from the "never existed" to the "lamentable" all discuss the ancient view of horse evolution

By "ancient" do you mean the one still in use in 1989 as the quote shows?

(question already asked before where you assert that this is a century ago)

The really "Good news" you seem to "get" that I am "staying on topic".

Please note the focus is "lessons learned" from that debunked horse series!

(Are you still following this?)

to which no one subscribes and to which they have not subscribed for several decades.

Wonderful - we are now down from "Century" to the 1980's! Outstanding!

Now for the "Lessons learned" points raised on page 1 and 2.

UTEOTS

You have no evidence relating to the modern evidence

IS this where you "get" that a post mortem on the debunked horse series is not "ALSO a review" of the current one?

(maybe you are hoping for a "post mortem" on the current story - feel free to start such a thread)

UTEOTW
So keep living in your delusion

Ease up off that coolaide UTEOTW and try to return focus on to the "lessons learned" topic of this thread for the debunked horse series.

UTEOTW
that by dubunking a strawman than you have accomplished something.

The atheist darwinians "Debunked" the horse series after the facts brought them to their knees.

the debunked series is NOT MY strawman - it was the product of atheist darwinians themselves.

Now for the "lessons learned"

UTEOTW even in the quotes you give us, the authors are talking about ...

"About the debunked series that was presented by atheist darwians as IF it were fact".

You are almost engaging in conversation now.

Just try to retain topic focus for this thread and bring yourself to the "lessons learned" subject.

(Not sure if you are still following the main point of the thread - but who knows ... maybe)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now for that {page one detail being ignored by the believers in Atheist darwinian evolutionism)

Page 1 --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131.html#000012

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Going back to the "lamentable" start of the "lamentable" series known as "the horse series".

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.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"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.

"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 above quote says "Reconstructed IN an evolutionary series"!! That is "a nice way to put it" friends.

He in fact "ARRANGED the fossils" into an "artifact" of science! Did HE KNOW he had contrived an arrangement to FIT the story that atheist darwinian evolutionism 'wants to tell'? Yes!!

Did He KNOW He was ARRANGING? YES!

Did He KNOW He was NOT telling the audience "This is simply a contrived arrangement to fit a story that I would like to tell"? YES!!

He knew this FROM THE START!!

In science we try to DISCOVER that we are wrong and need to make a correction. So what did we DISCOVER to call what he was doing "lamentable"?

Think about it. </font>[/QUOTE]I realize that this concept is far more complex than simply "What is the topic - now notice that I am STAYING on the topic of the post mortem for the debunked horse series" --

But surely there is an evolutionist here that can go this far and respond to the point.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK I'll try to explain a second time.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
OK I'll try to explain a second time.

All wrong isn't an accurate represetation of the so-called "problem".

So you are differing with the atheist darwinist summation. hmmm - interesting.

Perhaps you "believe" the "sequence" DID occur just as it was presented no matter how much your own atheist darwinists deny that point.

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.

Yes you did say that before (and of course UTEOTW admits it is a strawman series totally debunked but you seem to think it is valid).

As I asked before (and as you have stalled in responding to the point so far) ARE you really comfortable claiming that the sequence IS CORRECT it is just not 'The most direct one available'??

This question has been asked already - are you ready to respond now?

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

Why not just read "The first time" and respond to the question that came in response to this "the first time"??

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/2.html#000029

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/3.html#000030

 

[BobRyan]

We already have some "new lessons to learn" from the looks of it -

#1. Believers in atheist darwinism "don't like learning lessons from old debunked darwinist stories" they want to talk about "newer stories instead of learning the lessons from the old ones".

#2. SOME of the true believers in atheist darwinism a stuck still reliving and defending the old dubunked series while OTHERs reluctantly confess it was bogus but then want to attack Bible believing Christians for even MENTIONING the debunked series!!

#3. Not only do the true believers in atheist darwinism gloss over the "details" of what their own atheist darwinist icons have said about that horse series and so they also do not read the 'details' in the posts that expose them here -- they ALSO apparently do not read each other's posts. (Judging from the sharp contrast between Paul's DEFENSE of the bogus series and UTEOTW's attack on anyone that might mention it's existence).

However if you paid attention to page 1 and part of 2 - you would know that THIS is not what I wanted to highlight here. The true believers in atheist darwinism were so anxious to fall all over themselves on this topic that they kinda spewed these unpleasant "new" lessons for us all to learn.

I had hoped to go back to the actual history of the debunked series itself.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK I'll try to explain a third time.

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.

By the way UTEOTW's posts are completely consistent with what I am saying here and so are the posts you put up quoting evolutionists in so called opposition to the evolution of horses. I am forever grateful for UTEOTW's thoroughness of research in showing example after example of compelling evidence for God's creation having been by means of evolution.