[_ Old Earth _] The Junk-Science pillars used to prop up Darwinism

[Jayls5]

Marsh assembled his series in the 1800's - Simpson PUBLISHED 1951 so yeah I guess you could say "not soon enough".

But the point is that the METHOD was "assemble" and "arrange" then "Wrap in a story" in the case of Marsh he did it for Huxley.

Bob

So you're saying that Marsh described it differently from what Simpson published? Or Simpson merely published Marsh's findings from a while ago?

Just trying to get all the facts...

 

[BobRyan]

Simpson published what Marsh put together.

Marsh put a sequence together NOT because "he found them in that order in the fossil record" but because "they make a good story when arranged that way".

Later it was very obvious that "the story" was too thin and that fossil evidence against it was mounting to the point that nobody could possibly hide behind the tiny little curtain that was left for that hoax -- and they had to finally give it up.

but they seem to stand behind the junk-science method of "making up a story about what you did NOT FIND if it sounds good for atheist darwinism".

And THAT is the part that is problematic in the "sequence that NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

Notice what Simpson says about that 7-species SEQUENCE he presented in HIS book -- using the data that Marsh provided.

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

So if you want to stick that "continuous phyletic evolutionary SEQUENCE" in the middle of your horse-bush-diagram you are STILL presenting the same debunked "continuous phyletic" progression -- and that would be to go against the frank statements that even the atheist darwinists are making about how that does not fit the data.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Simpson published what Marsh put together.

Marsh put a sequence together NOT because "he found them in that order in the fossil record" but because "they make a good story when arranged that way".

Later it was very obvious that "the story" was too thin and that fossil evidence against it was mounting to the point that nobody could possibly hide behind the tiny little curtain that was left for that hoax -- and they had to finally give it up.

but they seem to stand behind the junk-science method of "making up a story about what you did NOT FIND if it sounds good for atheist darwinism".

And THAT is the part that is problematic in the "sequence that NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

Notice what Simpson says about that 7-species SEQUENCE he presented in HIS book -- using the data that Marsh provided.

The line from Eohippus to Hypohippus exemplifies a fairly continuous phyletic evolution."
G.G. Simpson, Horses, 1951, pg 215.

So if you want to stick that "continuous phyletic evolutionary SEQUENCE" in the middle of your horse-bush-diagram you are STILL presenting the same debunked "continuous phyletic" progression -- and that would be to go against the frank statements that even the atheist darwinists are making about how that does not fit the data.

Bob

Bob

So the fraud is in the fact that he published scientific work, then later examined it and corrected it.... but didn't respond timely enough for people who referenced the original?

 

[BobRyan]

Nope.

The fraud (and it is more than a little instructive that the concept of "fraud" is so difficult for believers in atheist darwinism to see clearly) is that the PRACTICE of simply taking fossils found and TELLING STORIES about them (even though you have no data IN THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWING that the "sequence" you give in your 'stories' is true) is ITSELF a fraudulent practice -- starting with Marsh AND continuing to the very day in the various horse-stories still floating about.

The "game" they play is of the form "assemble a fossil sequence -- tell a story in favor of darwinism that you don't think will be exposed as a fraud in the near future".

The bone structure problem already highlhighted shows the degree to which they simply "assemble stories" and hope "it sticks".

 

[Jayls5]

Nope.

The fraud (and it is more than a little instructive that the concept of "fraud" is so difficult for believers in atheist darwinism to see clearly) is that the PRACTICE of simply taking fossils found and TELLING STORIES about them (even though you have no data IN THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWING that the "sequence" you give in your 'stories' is true) is ITSELF a fraudulent practice -- starting with Marsh AND continuing to the very day in the various horse-stories still floating about.

The "game" they play is of the form "assemble a fossil sequence -- tell a story in favor of darwinism that you don't think will be exposed as a fraud in the near future".

The bone structure problem already highlhighted shows the degree to which they simply "assemble stories" and hope "it sticks".

That appears to be a caricature of an evil conspiring group of "evolutionary" scientists you have there.

That, or apparent predictions made about the horse's lineage was later found out to be lacking. Scientists then corrected this after further analyzing it. The scientific community did this on their own accord if I'm not mistaken. Am I wrong about that?

 

[Snidey]

Nope.

The fraud (and it is more than a little instructive that the concept of "fraud" is so difficult for believers in atheist darwinism to see clearly) is that the PRACTICE of simply taking fossils found and TELLING STORIES about them (even though you have no data IN THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOWING that the "sequence" you give in your 'stories' is true) is ITSELF a fraudulent practice -- starting with Marsh AND continuing to the very day in the various horse-stories still floating about.

The "game" they play is of the form "assemble a fossil sequence -- tell a story in favor of darwinism that you don't think will be exposed as a fraud in the near future".

The bone structure problem already highlhighted shows the degree to which they simply "assemble stories" and hope "it sticks".

THANK YOU. Scientists organize fossils in crazy orders based on "time" and "fossil strata location" and then make "informed educated guesses" as to what that means :-? . But they don't even know what TIME means! With daylight savings time they change around all the rules and then next thing you know I'm late for work and it's "the last straw" and I "need to go find a new job." And you want to tell me scientists are GOOD for us? :o :crazyeyes:

 

[Jayls5]

THANK YOU. Scientists organize fossils in crazy orders based on "time" and "fossil strata location" and then make "informed educated guesses" as to what that means :-? . But they don't even know what TIME means! With daylight savings time they change around all the rules and then next thing you know I'm late for work and it's "the last straw" and I "need to go find a new job." And you want to tell me scientists are GOOD for us? :o :crazyeyes:

Are you another creationist parody?

1) Earth's rotation is slowing, affecting the length of a day ever so slowly.
2) The earth does not revolve around the sun in exactly 365 days, requiring an occasional leap year with an extra calendar day.
3) The time change you are referring to is arbitrarily done (politically, not scientifically) to increase the sunlight for the average person during the afternoon hours.

We've got a fairly good scientific handle on time. Your anger should be directed towards the political institution that introduced daylight savings time.

 

[John]

Are you another creationist parody?

I think its possible I've been followed from another board. :

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian shows two evolutionary steps in the transition to modern horses)

You missed the point.

Oh, I thought you wanted me to show you the transitions to modern horses. Now you don't want to see them? I kinda figured that would happen. It happens most times when creationists see the evidence. Suddenly, they want to go somewhere else. As you can see, Hyracotherium has nothing to do with hyraxes, but is a slightly modified condylarth. Notice that Hyracotherium has all the features of the condylarth, but only slightly modified.

My argument is that THE SEQUENCE published in 1951 was fraudullent

Well, you're dead wrong on that one. It was, as Simpson pointed, out, and error. I would, of course, be willing to see your evidence for intentional deception, but I suspect that you just made that up.

it was "contrived" it was "simply arranged and then a story wrapped around it" (kinda like you're doing now).

I showed you evidence. Only a creationist would consider reality to be fraudulent.

And My point is that EVEN Simpson ADMITS that the sequence published " never happened in nature" AND it does not show up in your link as "the new story for how it happened" either!

You'd probably do a lot better if you actually read what Simpson wrote. He pointed out that the evolution of horses was a bush, not a ladder.

On the other hand, when I showed you actual evidence for the evolution of horses, you tried to change the subject.

Why do you think we are going to "miss" this inconvenient detail?

Probably because even you can see where a string of transitionals is going to lead. You guys always bail out when the facts close in.

Let's recap.

Here's an actual skeleton of Hyracotherium:

A bit later in the rocks, we find this:

Orohippus. A few changes in the teeth, slightly enlarged middle digits, compared to Hyracotherium, and on the hindlegs, the vestigial 1st and 5th toes of Hyracotherium are now completely gone.

I will now ask you, "Do these differences exceed those found within a single species of many mammals?" If not, we must admit these are transitional. Tell us about it.

 

[BobRyan]

hyracotherium are often found in rock layers ABOVE more modern horses -- when that happens the devout evolutionist declares that "something is wrong -- we need a story for that one" and coming up with one -- they then add "never find Hyracotherium above more modern horses in the rocks".

It makes for good story telling.

It also helps to tell that story if you are going to simply "arrange fossils" as you pick-and-choose in favor of some darwinist story telling. And that is why Marsh is not blamed for simply "picking and choosing" in the contrived sequence he "arranged" -- because that IS the work of darwinists in story telling. IF they descount that method -- there is no darwinism.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

"Each genus is itself a bush of several related species, not a rung on a ladder of progress. These species often lived and interacted in the same area at the same time (as different species of zebra do in Africa today.) One set of strata in Wyoming, for example, has yielded three species of Meeohippus and two of Miohippus, all contemporaries.

"The species of these bushes tend to arise with geological suddenness and then to persist with little change for long periods. Evolutionary change occurs at the branch points themselves, and trends are not continuous marches up ladders, but concatenations of increments achieved at nodes of branching on evolutionary bushes.

"Bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.

"The model of the ladder is much more than merely wrong. It never could provide the promised illustration of evolution as progressive and triumphant, for it could only be applied to unsuccessful lineages." â€â€*Steven Jay Gould, "Life's Little Joke," in Natural History April 1987, p. 2425.

But the efforts to "assemble" in a storytelling fashion - simply "continues"

Gould did a good job of highlighting the problem -- as it turns out.

bob

 

[BobRyan]

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19: Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs; Orohippus had only 15 pairs; then Pliohippus jumped to 19; and Equus scoff! is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbers of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

Kinda makes you wonder about the "story telling" and the "wrappering job" they do when they CONTINUE to "assemble unrelated fossils" as a "series".

If you are going to "Assemble and arrange" regardless of rock layer, regardless of skeletal structure -- then you have the problems as illustrated -- innexplicable skeletal randomness without a hint of natural selection as the "cause"--

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[quote:63d4d]"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. [b]So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."[/b] in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.
â€â€*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"Darwins problem with the fossile record has NOT been aleviated" -- fire da bumb!! How dare he admit to that!!

censor...censor...

calling all to pogrom meeting this evening at 11!! ;-)
[/quote:63d4d]

Raup is correct on that part of his assessment -- as it turns out.

Bob

 

[Barbarian]

"There is an interesting discrepancy in the skeletal development of this [horse] series: the anatomy of the various models does not compare.

"For example, the rib court varies back and forth from 15 to 19: Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs; Orohippus had only 15 pairs; then Pliohippus jumped to 19; and Equus scoff! is back to 18.

"Also, the lumbers of the backbone vary back and forth from 6 to 8. Therefore, many eminent scientists disagree on the theoretical chain of fossil horses." â€â€Howard Path, Blind Faith (1990), p. 119.

Remember when I asked you if they differed more than is common within modern mamallian species, Bob? It's because the number of ribs varies within the modern species of horse. They don't hall have the same number. 8-)

The "many eminent scientists who disagree" are merely fictions of his imagination. BTW, not all humans have the same number of ribs, either. You think humans didn't have a common ancestor?

Howie has taken you down the garden path, Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Modern horses come in sizes from about 14 inches tall to the massive Clydesdales.

It is not at all clear - that these can be arranged in a sequence where "one comes from the other".

THOUGH they CAN be arranged in a sequence going from small to large.

And as you point out -- the differences in skeletal structure among EXISTING horses does not indicate "one came from the other". No "natural selection" going on even among LIVING horses to get the 14" horse vs the Clydesdale - not in terms of feet or skeletal structure or teeth etc.

No way to get a clydesdale to "lose ribs" or "grow ribs" or "lose vertibrae" through starvation or killing them via artificial predation etc.

So given that you can't make that Darwinist argument from EXISTING horses -- you have no chance of doing it with dead untestable ones. And as Gould points out -- to get Simpson's sequence to work extinct groups would have had to do a lot of work after they went extinct.

However this simply argues against evolutionISM of the horse -- which is not my intent on this thread.

I am simply pointing to the "junk science methods" that ARRANGE fossils in a sequence "that NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE" EVEN by atheist darwinist standards and asking the question -- what "ENABLES such junk-science story telling" and is that principle STILL alive and well in atheist darwinism.

Clearly as your arguments support - it is continuing... which was my point all along. And it exhibited most recently in things like Archaeoraptor story telling and Neanderthal dating methods.

bob

 

[Jayls5]

For the love of God, stop calling it ATHEIST DARWINISM.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. If you can explain to me how this entire argument in the thread wouldn't apply to a simple darwinist and only apply to an "atheist darwinist" - then it would actually make sense to use the phrase.

However, it doesn't! This entire horse argument has NOTHING to do with atheism! Your use of this ridiculous phrase just makes you sound like a sophist. Stop doing it.

You proving anything about these stupid horses only shows that some evolutionist conception of how something evolved was wrong. It has NOTHING to do with a belief in God or lack thereof. You honestly just sound like a moron because you keep spouting off this inapplicable mantra and imply that it somehow damages the credibility of an atheist who believes in evolution. Sorry, it doesn't.

 

[John]

For the love of God, stop calling it ATHEIST DARWINISM.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. If you can explain to me how this entire argument in the thread wouldn't apply to a simple darwinist and only apply to an "atheist darwinist" - then it would actually make sense to use the phrase.

However, it doesn't! This entire horse argument has NOTHING to do with atheism! Your use of this ridiculous phrase just makes you sound like a sophist. Stop doing it.
.

I beg to differ, evolution and atheism go hand in hand down the aisle.
hop on over to RDF.

If your an atheist, there is still only 2 models which of them to you believe ? God created it, NO cause you don't believe in god. so that leaves only evolution.

Its like jam and peanut butter, they are perfect for each other.

 

[Barbarian]

hyracotherium are often found in rock layers ABOVE more modern horses

But the earliest ones are located in older rocks than more modern ones. You are arguing that if you're alive, your uncle has to be dead. :-?

-- when that happens the devout evolutionist declares that "something is wrong -- we need a story for that one" and coming up with one -- they then add "never find Hyracotherium above more modern horses in the rocks".

I don't know a paleontologist who says so. Moreover, I don't know one who thinks that when a new species branches off, that means the old population can't continue to live.

It makes for good story telling.

They suckered you on that story, Bob, as they did with the "number of ribs" fraud you told us about.

 

[Jayls5]

For the love of God, stop calling it ATHEIST DARWINISM.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM. If you can explain to me how this entire argument in the thread wouldn't apply to a simple darwinist and only apply to an "atheist darwinist" - then it would actually make sense to use the phrase.

However, it doesn't! This entire horse argument has NOTHING to do with atheism! Your use of this ridiculous phrase just makes you sound like a sophist. Stop doing it.
.

I beg to differ, evolution and atheism go hand in hand down the aisle.
hop on over to RDF.

If your an atheist, there is still only 2 models which of them to you believe ? God created it, NO cause you don't believe in god. so that leaves only evolution.

Its like jam and peanut butter, they are perfect for each other.

Jesus Christ, did you just finish watching that stupid creationist documentary or something?

Evolution says NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the origin of life. I have said this plainly, clearly, and quite often on this forum. Yet, magically, people tend to forget that evolution says ABSO-Fing-Lutely NOTHING about the origin of life.

Who says you can't believe in a deist conception of the universe with evolution? Who says you can't believe in a pantheist view of the universe with evolution. Who says we can't simply say, "We have no significant evidence of anything at all on the origin of life and we have no opinion" WHILE believing in evolution!??

This absurd false dichotomy that Christians endlessly spout out about evolution is annoying to anyone with a basic conception of what these theories actually entail. Frankly, it also makes the people who suggest these false dichotomies look ignorant as hell. Do yourself a favor and stop. The patience is wearing thin on this forum for people who repeatedly ignore the most basic tenets of the theory they argue against.

 

[John]

Atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

So.

If

God

Does

Not

Exist

Then

This

Means

Everything

We

See

Around

Us

Became

About

By

Natural

Godless

Methods.

Example

E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N

Atheists

Belive

In

EVOLUTION.