The believers purpose for these Evol topics?

[BobRyan]

I'm sure you could find some scientific topic noncontroversial enough that we could discuss it without arguing,

The example I select here - SHOWS atheist darwinist quotes AGREEING with the Christian view that the fraudulent horse fossil series "Arrangement" was "ALL WRONG", "LAMENTABLE" and was simply "Story told as if it was DISCOVERD FACT".

How much more OBVIOUS and "agreed upon" were you thinking?

Or maybe you weren't

 

[Petrel]

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

The example I select here - SHOWS atheist darwinist quotes AGREEING with the Christian view that the fraudulent horse fossil series "Arrangement" was "ALL WRONG", "LAMENTABLE" and was simply "Story told as if it was DISCOVERD FACT".

How much more OBVIOUS and "agreed upon" were you thinking?

Or maybe you weren't

Did I already say that? Maybe you were "thinking" while sleeping and glossing over the inconvenient facts identified above eh?

Let's see - you are an evolutionist after all - so you must have been glossing over facts!

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bob said

The example I select here - SHOWS atheist darwinist quotes AGREEING with the Christian view that the fraudulent horse fossil series "Arrangement" was "ALL WRONG", "LAMENTABLE" and was simply "Story told as if it was DISCOVERD FACT".

How much more OBVIOUS and "agreed upon" were you thinking?

Or maybe you weren't

Did I already say that? Maybe you were "thinking" while sleeping and glossing over the inconvenient facts identified above eh?

Let's see - you are an evolutionist after all - so you must have been glossing over facts! </font>[/QUOTE]For the fifth time, BR, all that really has happened is that enough pre-horse species have been discovered that it is difficult to tell which are the true lines directly to the current horses and which are merely side lines. So the lineages of our horse evolution series are "wrong" in the sense that they need to be corrected based on better information, but not "wrong" in the sense that there was no evolution!

I don't know how many times I'll have to point this out to you before you understand what these people you quote are really saying.

Wait - I'm beginning to get the idea that maybe you'll NEVER learn. . . .

Funny thing, though, about your arguement. You're not pointing to the basic evidence of the fossils themselves and explaining what we see there. You're just quoting people (with highly selected key words quoted out of context, as everybody knows by now) and ignoring the actual evidence.

That might be how you do theology. It isn't science.

 

[BobRyan]

For the zillionth time - "enough fossils have been found for the horse to totally DEBUNK the fraudulent fossil ARRANGEMENT first foisted onto the public by atheist darwinists".

The "debunking" is NOT of the form "Well you had correct the fossil sequence but you did not have ENOUGH intermediate examples BETWEEN them".

In your constant need for "revisionism" you keep "editing history" AS IF any such thing happened.

But obviously all thinking members of mankind KNOW that in such cases we DO NOT delcare that original to be "lamentable" nor do we state that it "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" rather we would say that it DID happen but even more detail on how it happened is available.

In the case of Newtonian Physics vs relativity we do not say "GRAVITY NEVER HAPPENED".

But in the case of a FRAUD IT IS valid to say "HEY that was FRAUD! IT was merely data ARRANGED TO FIT A STORY".

But when each time the "Core concept of fraud" is raised you "embrace it as though it is science!!" --

Why in the world do you have to keep embarrassing yourself like that?

I just know that you and UTEOTW can do better.

Petrel - I am not so sure.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Funny thing, though, about your arguement. You're not pointing to the basic evidence of the fossils themselves and explaining what we see there. You're just quoting people

Wrong "again".

#1. When I quote Sunderland and Simpson I am quoting recognized authorities. When I quote you - I am quoting an obscure source.

#2. I DO NOT show that "the evidence of the fossils themselves" supported (EVER SUPPORTED) what "NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE"!! What I show is that the fossils were fraudulently ARRANGED in a sequence that never happened in an effort to ARRANGE DATA TO FIT the story. (Some call in dry labing). The methods and practice of fraud - is to ARRANGE DATA to FIT a story!

Get it? Yet?

 

[BobRyan]

I am curious as to the "Stories" that belivers in atheist darwinism have to "Tell themselves" when they SEE their own doctrine foisted into the science classrooms in the form of fraudulent contrived fossil series such as the one Marsh invented in the 1870's. When you SEE that your atheist darwinist methods require evolutionists to CONTINUE to contrive "Sequences" rather than "Discovering them as dictated by the fossil record" - what stories do you tell yourself and others so you can still "Fell good about it"??

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Just out of sheer curiousity, Bob, do you believe horses and donkeys have a common ancestor, since they can breed and make a hybred mule?

 

[BobRyan]

The question I am asking is a bit more objective than simply the degree of speciation possible within Dogs, wolves, squirrells or horses.

I am referencing the fact that Atheist Darwinians now admit to the failed fossil "arrangement".

My question is a serious one. I "thought" that believers in atheist darwinism were "telling themselves" that these sequences were actually "FOUND as such" in the fossil record.

I had not guessed that they were all saying "well sure we just make that stuff up as IF that is the way we are finding it in the fossil record".

If this is the way you guys are talking to yourselves it is news to me. The fact that NOBODY here tries to defend the Marsh invention based on actual fossil record SEQUENCES (even in his day) and the fact that they do not blink an eye at the "fabrication" needed to do what he did - tells me that they are "happy with those methods".

#1. Nobody today claims that Marsh did anything with the available date that atheist darwinists do not STILL do to "arrange" sequences. (See the 20 different flavors for the current horse series available)

#2. Even those atheist darwinists that claim to lament his work as "never happend in nature" do not bother to review the methods used to see if there is a good reason to STOP doing what he did to come up with that bogus result! They don't see to care about the risk of CONTINUING to present "Stories" that may in fact be found at some point to have "never happened in nature"

(Imagine Newtonian physics texts books having to claim that gravity "never happened in nature" when Quantum mechanics or relativity are finally understood!)

So "What other methods" of similar character are they not telling us about?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] For the zillionth time - "enough fossils have been found for the horse to totally DEBUNK the fraudulent fossil ARRANGEMENT first foisted onto the public by atheist darwinists".

The "debunking" is NOT of the form "Well you had correct the fossil sequence but you did not have ENOUGH intermediate examples BETWEEN them".

Can you prove that? By the way, you show a total incomprenhension of what I have been saying over and over again.

I have not been saying "you did not have ENOUGH intermediate examples BETWEEN them".

It is not surprising that you don't listen, not anymore.

But for the sixth time, they are merely telling us in these quotes that they have become aware of ADDITIONAL SIDE LINES in the horse evolution series so that SOME OF THE FOSSILS thought to be in the straight sequence are ACTUALLY IN A SIDE LINE . . and others, instead, are in the correct sequence.

Having discovered this, they express anxiety over getting out the corrected information, thats all you've got.

Its hardly evidence against evolution at all!

If my interpretation is wrong, please don't just quote a sentence in opposition. Show me the sequences that are falsified now and show me how the current view is untenable now. That is, show the current view of the sequences and where the unbridgeable gap is.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
For the zillionth time - "enough fossils have been found for the horse to totally DEBUNK the fraudulent fossil ARRANGEMENT first foisted onto the public by atheist darwinists".

The "debunking" is NOT of the form "Well you had correct the fossil sequence but you did not have ENOUGH intermediate examples BETWEEN them".

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Can you prove that? By the way, you show a total incomprenhension of

I not only show that = I show YOUR OWN atheist darwinists ADMITTING that the fossil "Sequence presented" never happened in nature!!

Get it?

Never HAPPENED!

You claim "NO the fossil sequence presented DID HAPPEN and so ALSO did many other sequences for horse evolution"

Basically you deny your own atheist darwinists AS IF they were Bible Believing Creationists!!!

Not only do you NOT step up to the high bar of objectivity and show Bible believing Christian creationists saying that the bogus debunked fossil seried DID happen but you even deny the Atheist Darwinists that admit IT DID NOT!!

The total extend of your blinders on this topic is beyond the wildest imagination!!

Your total loss of objectivity THEN LEADS you to insist that I not SHOW your duplicity as you debate YOUR OWN ATHEIST DARWINISTS on this point!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The previous post shows that when the facts do not suit darwinist evolutionists here - they gloss over them. When their OWN atheist darwinist icons CONTRADICT their views they charge Christians with the their OWN conflicted blunders and insist that the atheist darwinist sources not be quoted.

When the fossil record DOES not support them they simply ARRANGE fossils to fit their stories.

At every turn glossing over data and contriving new stories is the standard practice for darwinian evolutionism.