Post Mortem on the debunked horse series

[BobRyan]

Recall the obvious lesson we see from the evolutionists on every page of this thread where they post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact challenged tactics of evolutionists on this thread have been painfully obvious to reader with an ounce of objectivty.

#1. They dodge direct response to direct questions.

#2. They gloss over inconvenient details.

#3. They deny the obvious at every turn.

#4. They practice atheist darwinist methods of "revisionism' for every detail of history they portray.

Another perfect example of these "tactics" follows as Paul has provided it.

Paul quotes Bob -
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said
#3. They ARRANGE the fossils showing smooth transitional sequences - with smooth contiguous size and shape changes SHOWN specimen by specimen starting with the very earliest sequences! They created arrangements - rather than discovering the sequence IN the fossil record!!

BobRyan further admits that a smooth continuous arrangement of the fossils remains possible!
</font>[/QUOTE]In your marriage to the fraudulent practices of "ARRANGING the data to FIT the story" you seal your own confesson (and charitably "confusion") by observing that the same fraud practiced by Marsh COULD STILL be practiced today and it would show the SAME orthogenic smooth transitional sequence if the same fossils were simply ARRANGED in the sequence contrived by Marshall.

Obviously ALL breathing humans can agree that this fraud demonstrates the same idea EVERY TIME it is SHOWN! The problem is that SINCE the sequence is merely ARRANGED to FIT - and not DISCOVERED FACT - it is FRAUD!!

Why is this concept so difficult for the true believers in Atheist Darwinism??

Is it because this fraudulent practice is at the CORE of the standard-procedures within the pseudoscience of atheist darwinism??!!

Is that why these guys can't even see the point being raised??

I had not "imagined" that their minds were so clouded or their understanding of actual science so compromised!

With "friends" like UTEOTW and Paul defending teh fraudulent and exposed blunders of atheist darwinism LIKE FRAUD IS A GOOD THING - evolutionism hardly needs enemies!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So, if we have any lurkers left, what do you think?

Sorry, no lurkers left, they all died of boredom six pages ago!

I admire your endless patience and optimism! </font>[/QUOTE]Let's see "go spam another thread" rather than simply adding vaccuous statements here --

(I think that was the way you preferred to have that statement made according to your "if only I were a monitor" post)

In any case - if you can't keep to the OP subject - try another thread.

 

[Petrel]

Thank goodness you're not a moderator.

It would be spamming if, to pick an example completely at random

, you were to start a thread with actual scientific merit and then I were to saunter in and use the thread as a thinly veiled excuse to insult an entirely different forum member.

Now if you were responding as an aside to a post in that thread, that would be different.

Funny about you have no compunctions about hijacking other people's threads until someone posts something that you don't like in one of yours.

Now that you have stated your objection to such practices, I expect you won't show up in the serious science threads unless you have something substantive to offer. A happy resolution for all.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
[QB] Thank goodness you're not a moderator.

It would be spamming if, to pick an example completely at random

, you were to start a thread with actual..
...
(obligatory pointless ranting deleted!)

Petrel "your back"!!

Always a pleasure.

 

[BobRyan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact challenged tactics of evolutionists on this thread have been painfully obvious to reader with an ounce of objectivty.

#1. They dodge direct response to direct questions.

#2. They gloss over inconvenient details.

#3. They deny the obvious at every turn.

#4. They practice atheist darwinist methods of "revisionism' for every detail of history they portray.


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

Did I "already post that"? Ooops!

 

[BobRyan]

In all the sadly failed antics and tactics of believers in atheist darwinism on this thread so far - perhaps none is so far oof the mark and yet "revealing" as this bogus post by UTEOTW

First you confess to your own efforts to derail the topic OFF of the "Post mortem on te DEBUNKED horse fossil series" presented by Marsh.

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/5.html#000068


I asked above if you had any quotes that addressed the ectual modern ideas on horse evolution, rather than the strawman version from the early part of the LAST century and the last part of the century before that.

Then you "pretend" that I have joined you in derailing the topic and tried to collect statements about the "new story" in horse evolution.

You apparently do not.

You again just requoted the same deceitful, out of context quotes again. Is that your only ability?

You toss out ad hominem as if I am not derailing the topic the way you had 'wished' simply because I am "I UNNABLE" to oppose atheist darwinism in its "new story" form.

What a dishonest way to conduct your vaccuous post.

My quotes and focus have been consistently on the debunked horse series - that even Atheist darwinist admit to be a fossil series "discredited"

You "then" PRETEND that in your own clouded reasoning - your own DISCOVERY of the topic of this thread is somehow a failure of mine to "CHANGE TOPICS"!!

UTEOTW
It has been pointed out an incredible number of times that ALL of your horse quotes are merely selective quotations of scientists describing how the old straightline, gradual model of horse evolution was replaced with the actual highly branching, jerky version

In fact my quotes SHOW that they discredit the old fossil series and your inadverntant quote above shows that you finally admit to the obvious point of the OP !!

But for every tiny moment of light in your post you have to go back to ad hominem and story telling -- the accurate quotes here become twisted in your story telling "to lying quotes" simply because the focus for the OP is not on the 'next horsey story' the one you would rather talk about.

UTEOTW
You have yet to even attempt to back up your lying quotes by either providing independent facts that show what you are asserting to be true or by trying to provide some context that would show that the authors really intended the quotes to mean

The basic point is that the authors INTENDED for the reader to view the debunked horse series of fossils as "lamentable" and beginning with that point we have BASIS for "post mortem". Your constant whining not withstanding.

You keep whining that to ADMIT to the devastating part of their statement regarding the debunked horse series most not be done rather we must GLOSS OVER THAT PART QUICKLY or else we are being dishonest.

That tactic of yours is rank revisionism.

UTEOTW
There is a good reason why you have done neither. It would be impossible for you to do so. You KNOW that you are misrepresenting these guys. And you KNOW that there are no facts to support your claims.

My claim is that the debunked discredited horse series is 'debunked and discredited' JUST like they say!!

Your constant insistence that we "gloss over that inconvenient detail" not with standing!

Then you "pretend" that if I had a good point to make it would NEVER be about the DEBUNKED horse series that YOU "need" to ignore - I could ONLY have a topic on the "NEXT STORY" for horses NEVER about the debunked horse fossil series that you so need to ignore!!

If there were, you would have long ago provided them.

The closest to my request thatyou came was to point out the the the "lamentable" quote was from the 80's. Unfortunately for you, that still does not change the fact that what was being discussed was an old museum piece that still mistakenly showed the now supplanted view of orthgenetic evolution

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/5.html#000068

In that one moment of whining from you we have your most devastating statement AGAINST the rabbit trails, obfuscation, misdirection and revisionism you have been practicing on this thread as of late.

YOU ADMIT that you "get" the fact that this thread is on that "museum piece" consisting of fossils "arranged to fit a story" as if the fraudulent ARRANGEMENT was "DISCOVERED fact"

All my quotes SHOW that the fossil arrangement was "debunked". That IS the point. That IS the fact that you have ADMITTED TO and yet seek to AVOID and so even after ADMITTING it you turn around and call it "NON FACT"

You continue your poor quoting in your more recent posts. It can only be an attempt to distract from your inability to argue from facts.

The FACT remains - they have declared that series to be debunked!!

Now to "do the post mortem" on what they pronounced "dead" -- finally!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by 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.

...

By the way UTEOTW's posts are completely consistent with what I am saying here

UTEOTW said of the atheist darwinist quotes here --

the the "lamentable" quote was from the 80's. Unfortunately for you, that still does not change the fact that what was being discussed was an old museum piece that still mistakenly showed the now supplanted view of orthgenetic evolution

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/131/5.html#000068

One thing you are right about Paul - both of you then go on to fall on your swords over that "old museum piece that still mistakenly showed the now supplanted view of orthgenetic evolution."

It "still mistakenly showed" (fraudulently presented) Horse ancestors changing in size and in general orthogenic transformation from the very start! It does that by ARRANGING the fossils TO SHOW that smooth orthogenic transition IMMEDIATELY placing fossils in a contrived ORDER to CREATE the illusion they needed. It still SHOWS THAT today whenever that fossil series is viewed AS IT WAS arranged!!

And that is lamentable!!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

but Bob . . .

All the scientists were really saying in their articles you quote is that they have discovered so many more great examples of pre-horse fossils that they have difficulty picking which was ancestor to which - hardly evidence against evolution occuring ever at all!

So they can now revise the line and present it more accurately. Why is that such a big deal for you, as if it argued against evolution?

How many times do I have to point this out to you before you understand? I think this is about the sixth time already. What mysterious force is it that keeps you from learning?

 

[BobRyan]

Congrats to evols for trying to rabbit trail and derail the topic of this thread for 10 pages.

Now for some more "inconvenient facts" for the true believers in atheist darwinian doctrines to gloss over -

It is well known fact that "real science" finds all "fossil horses" mixed throughout all the different time layers where horses may be found and that only a person looking to fit the data to the story -- would know to "seek arrangements" favorable to atheist darwinism.

For example the modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers.

In other word Marsh did not "Discover the fact" of horse fossil sequences IN THE DIRT -- in the fossil record. Rather he ARRANGED a sequence INSPITE of how they are actually found in the fossil record.

That is the heart and soul of what it means to create a "fraud" by presenting contrived ARRANGEMENT as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT".

This obvious and simple concept is so difficult for atheist darwinians that they turn a blind eye to it and CONTINUE to employ that discredited art of deception "to this very day"

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Petrel "your back"!!

Always a pleasure.

What's that? Do you mean "you are back" or do you mean "watch your back 'cause I'll stab it if I can"?

 

[BobRyan]

No pointless vaccuous post from you goes unexpected Petrel.

I can only hope to be that predictable some day

 

[BobRyan]

Paul
So they can now revise the line and present it more accurately. Why is that such a big deal for you, as if it argued against evolution?

You are engaging in revisionist history "again" Paul. Here are the inconvenient facts you are "glossing over again" -- again.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is well known fact that "real science" finds all "fossil horses" mixed throughout all the different time layers where horses may be found and that only a person looking to fit the data to the story -- would know to "seek arrangements" favorable to atheist darwinism.

For example the modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers.

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

In other word Marsh did not "Discover the fact" of horse fossil sequences IN THE DIRT -- in the fossil record. Rather he ARRANGED a sequence INSPITE of how they are actually found in the fossil record.

That is the heart and soul of what it means to create a "fraud" by presenting contrived ARRANGEMENT as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT".

This obvious and simple concept is so difficult for atheist darwinians that they turn a blind eye to it and CONTINUE to employ that discredited art of deception "to this very day"

 

[BobRyan]

Double post

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
No pointless vaccuous post from you goes unexpected Petrel.

I can only hope to be that predictable some day

I think I'm becoming fond of you, BobRyan.

You make me smile!

 

[BobRyan]

OK - that was unnexpected. Good use of sarcasm --

Now back to my point.

The contrived "sequencing" of fossils by March -- presented AS IF it were "Discovered fact"

That is the heart and soul of what it means to create a "fraud" by presenting contrived ARRANGEMENT as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT".

 

[Petrel]

Actually it wasn't sarcastic.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Congrats to evols for trying to rabbit trail and derail the topic of this thread for 10 pages.

Now for some more "inconvenient facts" for the true believers in atheist darwinian doctrines to gloss over -

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
It is well known fact that "real science" finds all "fossil horses" mixed throughout all the different time layers where horses may be found and that only a person looking to fit the data to the story -- would know to "seek arrangements" favorable to atheist darwinism.

For example the modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time, since they are often found together in the same rock layers.

In other word Marsh did not "Discover the fact" of horse fossil sequences IN THE DIRT -- in the fossil record. Rather he ARRANGED a sequence INSPITE of how they are actually found in the fossil record.

That is the heart and soul of what it means to create a "fraud" by presenting contrived ARRANGEMENT as though it were "DISCOVERED FACT".

This obvious and simple concept is so difficult for atheist darwinians that they turn a blind eye to it and CONTINUE to employ that discredited art of deception "to this very day"</font>[/QUOTE]Now I got you!

Please provide a reference that shows that "modern Equus and Hyracotherium co-existed at the same time."

Just please give us that citation that shows where these were found together as you claim.

Surely it is not too much to ask you to back up a single claim of your with facts. We have been waiting for 11 pages now.

 

[BobRyan]

I have presented numerous facts that you glossed over.

I showed YOU discrediting the VERY failed horse fossil series that YOU are now falling on your sword over.

I showed SPECIFIC cases where size changes in the fabricated series were evident from the START in the contrived arrangement by Marsh. You simply "ignored that".

I showed SPECIFIC cases where atheist darwinist themselves admit to the failed fossil series being contrived in a way that DOES NOT show a sequence found IN the fossil record.

(I also stated clearly that Equus and Hracotherium are found in the SAME ROCK layers.

I also state that ALL horse fossil basic types are available in all the layers where horse fossils are found INSTEAD of seeing a layered "sequence" IN the fossil record!

I admit that this debunks the ENTIRE horse evolution "story making" and I admit that you "caught me" going after the big enchillada - when in fact for the sake of this thread - the smaller more obvious one "will do just fine")
)

I also state that "The fossil RECORD" was NEVER in the sequence Marsh presented. You have not EVER shown a case where IT WAS in your ceaseless efforts to fall on your sword over Marsh's failed contrivance.

 

[UTEOTW]

So you have no reference for your claim than your own post.

You do travel a well worn path with your posts. Too bad you are so far from the truth and are unabashed about it.

And you have failed to present a single solitary fact in actuality. Nothing but quotes. And has been repeatedly demonstrated, your quotes do not amount to what you alledge when placed in context.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
So you have no reference for your claim than your own post.

Wrong "again". I simply am not going to let you derail the topic of this thread to a more general debunking of horse evolution.

The point of the thread is to evaluate in a "lessons learned" format the methods used by Marsh to contrive and arrange a set of fossils in an order that he had not yet actually FOUND in the fossil AS IF the order was "discovered fact".

The obvious reason for limiting the scope of the thread to JUST THE OBVIOUS FACTS that BOTH Atheist Darwinsts and Bible believing Christsians admit to regarding the already debunked fossil series exhibit - is "obvious".

It makes you say weird things like "What Sunderland, Simpson and Eldridge say about the dunbunked horse fossil series does not matter to me" - as you fall on your own sword regarding the "lessons learned" in fraudulent methods.

Though it has been entertaining to watch you fall on your sword in repeated denials of the "obvious" including the totally bogus argument that quotes from Sunderland, Simpson, Eldridge etc "contain no facts at all" -- I would still like to get to the page ONE questions/points and have you "actually address them" (You or anyone in the camp of true believers in atheist darwinism)

In Christ,

Bob