Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
[_ Old Earth _] The Junk-Science pillars used to prop up Darwinism
J
Jayls5
Guest
johnmuise said:
Fact: Your post right here is rhetorical and void of argumentation.
Barbarian
Member
Right. As you learned earlier, number of ribs and size are not good indicators of descent. That's why we don't use them.
Artificial selection, actually. Humans mimic natural selection to get such great changes in superficial things. But adaptive variations, such as we see in teeth and ankles and spines takes considerably longer.
Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.
Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.
Appearing a bit later than Orohippus was Mesohippus:
The skull was a bit longer, and eyes moved back a bit more. And the fourth digit of the front foot was now almost gone. And a second premolar was enlarged and with higher cusps, to make a second "false molar."
Take a look at these two, and tell me if there is a greater difference between them than there is within many mammalian species today. If you can't, we'll go on...
It's too bad the National Geographic didn't wait for scientists to check it out, um? But they were in a hurry to publish. If they had waited for peer review, they would have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment. This is why, as a number of people have reminded you, that you should never accept what magazines print about science, unless it can be verified in the literature.
It's unfortunate that the professor in question chose to be sloppy and dishonest. But he got caught by peer review. That's why we have it. If creationist/IDers had something like that, we wouldn't be seeing so much of that from them.
J
Jayls5
Guest
johnmuise said:
You are apparently blind. You have ignored my comment once again. Perhaps I should beat it into your skull so you can maybe stop with these ANNOYING ass posts.
EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. EVOLUTION IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Read this post out loud, and maybe you will remember for next time before pissing everyone off with half of a brain.
CALL them "ATHEIST ABIOGENESISTS" or something if you want, but saying ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST does not mean that they claim to know ANYTHING about the origin of life. In case you missed that,
CALL them "ATHEIST ABIOGENESISTS" or something if you want, but saying ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST does not mean that they claim to know ANYTHING about the origin of life. This person would include me, hence the annoyance of this mindless inapplicable phrase that is supposedly touted against me.
I DO NOT HAVE AN OPINION ON HOW LIFE GOT STARTED. I DO NOT KNOW. I HAVE LITTLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY POSITION WHAT-SO-EVER. SINCE I AM AN ATHEIST AND AN EVOLUTIONIST WHILE BELIEVING THIS, I AM SINGLEHANDEDLY PROOF THAT YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS. IT SUCKS. SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS. I DON'T NORMALLY RESORT TO THIS TYPE OF DIALOGUE, BUT I'VE TRIED MANY TIMES TO EXPLAIN THIS ONLY TO HEAR THIS MORONIC PHRASE UTTERED AGAIN BY THE SAME PEOPLE, IGNORING ACTUAL PHYSICAL PROOF (ME) THAT THE PHRASE IS INAPPLICCCCCCCABLLLLLLEEEEEEEEE. IT DOES NOT APPLY. SAY IT WITH ME NOW. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I'VE EVEN GONE OUT OF MY WAY TO SUGGEST OTHER PHRASES THAT ACTUALLY WORK, BUT YOU KEEP GOING ON, AND ON, AND ON, AND ON, WITH THIS GARBAGE.
YOU SOUND LIKE A MORON. SIMPLY PUT. YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH A MORON IF YOU CAN'T GET IT AT THIS POINT.
B
BobRyan
Guest
The Barbarian said:
wrong.
The difference in skeletal structure sequences of the Darwinian storytelling kind simply oppose the storytelling by providing evidence that they are doing "desperate arranging" of fossils in a blind faith effort to provide stories about hoped-for ancestor--and-descent sequences.
You look at the problem and summarize "that is why we ignore those problems" AS IF that is a science "solution" -- it is simply admitting that the problem was too big for darwinism to solve.
Hint: "Artificial" from ancestors having the SAME number of ribs and vertibrae in all cases.
Barbarian
Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.
Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.
There is no "test" there -- you simply "assume darwinian doctrine by default".
That is not science -- it is religion.
The well-known Clydesdale draughthorse, one of the largest of horses, is seen here to dwarf one of the smallest varieties, a miniature horse. Despite the obvious difference in size between these two, they are both clearly horses.
The late Dr. Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter
However we are getting off topic because this simply puts us down the road of "the next shell game" in the Darwinian model for horses -- which is not my purpose. The point of the thread is to LOOK at the methods and principles USED to construct the first hoax and determine the way to PURGE atheist darwinism of reliance upon such junk-science methods.
So far you seem to only want to ENDORSE the methods that lead us to promoting "WHAT never HAPPENED IN NATURE" even by atheist darwinist standards.
Bob
Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
Right. As you learned earlier, number of ribs and size are not good indicators of descent. That's why we don't use them.
No, it's quite right, for the reasons we made clear. If humans vary in the number of ribs, (and they do), and vary greatly in size (and they do), then you must either agree with the above, or suppose that humans comprise a number of different species. Further, if you are a creationist, you cannot consistently believe they had a common ancestor.
No, you lied about that. As everyone can see here, I've addressed your objections with evidence, and you simply chose to claim I said something I did not. Bad idea, Bob.
No, you lied about that, too. For example, we can show the the difference in ribs explains why European horses and mustangs have the same number.
Barbarian observes:
Artificial selection, actually. Humans mimic natural selection to get such great changes in superficial things. But adaptive variations, such as we see in teeth and ankles and spines takes considerably longer.
No. Arabians, for example, have a different number. You've been badly misled on this, Bob.
The "caps lock" key won't make you more credible, Bob. It's just evidence that you don't have anything of substance.
Barbarian continues:
Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.
Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.
Since you can't find any differences between these two, greater than is found in many mammalian species, let's go to the next step. Remember, Mesohippus was not much different than Hyracotherium, and hardly at all different from Orohippus, but it had further reduced toes, a slightly longer skull, slightly longer legs, and one more premolar becoming molar-like.
Just a bit later in the fossil record, we find:
Miohippus.
Miohippus was again a bit larger, with a slightly longer face, and the ankle joint was less flexible. Not good for a forest browser, but great for a large animal on open plains.
Since you couldn't find much variation between the previous two, can you find more variation between the current two than is ordinarily found within many mammalian species?
If not, we'll go to the next step, next post.
It's called "evidence." And we're well on our way.
We're testing that claim now. If you can find a gap that exceeds the variation found within many mammalian species, you're right. If not, you're wrong.
As you have seen, no hoax. Just evidence. And you haven't had much luck refuting it. Let's see how you do this time.
Oh, and just to save bandwidth, it could you just post the mantra once, and indicate where you want to insert it thereafter?
Right. As you learned earlier, number of ribs and size are not good indicators of descent. That's why we don't use them.
No, it's quite right, for the reasons we made clear. If humans vary in the number of ribs, (and they do), and vary greatly in size (and they do), then you must either agree with the above, or suppose that humans comprise a number of different species. Further, if you are a creationist, you cannot consistently believe they had a common ancestor.
No, you lied about that. As everyone can see here, I've addressed your objections with evidence, and you simply chose to claim I said something I did not. Bad idea, Bob.
No, you lied about that, too. For example, we can show the the difference in ribs explains why European horses and mustangs have the same number.
Barbarian observes:
Artificial selection, actually. Humans mimic natural selection to get such great changes in superficial things. But adaptive variations, such as we see in teeth and ankles and spines takes considerably longer.
No. Arabians, for example, have a different number. You've been badly misled on this, Bob.
The "caps lock" key won't make you more credible, Bob. It's just evidence that you don't have anything of substance.
Barbarian continues:
Let's go on, then and test that claim. Since you were unable to find any differences between Hyracotherium and Orohippus (the appearance of which was later than that of Hyracotherium), we will conclude that they are sufficiently similar to be like modern horses, which differ in some respects, but all have a common ancestor.
Now, let's move on a bit. Here, as you remember, is Orohippus. It also differs from the earlier Hyracotherium in that the last premolar is a bit bigger, with higher cusps, indicating that it was adapted to a rougher diet than the browsing Hyracotherium.
Since you can't find any differences between these two, greater than is found in many mammalian species, let's go to the next step. Remember, Mesohippus was not much different than Hyracotherium, and hardly at all different from Orohippus, but it had further reduced toes, a slightly longer skull, slightly longer legs, and one more premolar becoming molar-like.
Just a bit later in the fossil record, we find:
Miohippus.
Miohippus was again a bit larger, with a slightly longer face, and the ankle joint was less flexible. Not good for a forest browser, but great for a large animal on open plains.
Since you couldn't find much variation between the previous two, can you find more variation between the current two than is ordinarily found within many mammalian species?
If not, we'll go to the next step, next post.
It's called "evidence." And we're well on our way.
We're testing that claim now. If you can find a gap that exceeds the variation found within many mammalian species, you're right. If not, you're wrong.
As you have seen, no hoax. Just evidence. And you haven't had much luck refuting it. Let's see how you do this time.
Oh, and just to save bandwidth, it could you just post the mantra once, and indicate where you want to insert it thereafter?
B
BobRyan
Guest
you can't have "data evidence" of a fossil sequence IN the ROCKS "That never happened in nature" when it "never happened in nature" -- what part of "never happened" are you calling "science" or even "data"??
Hint for the unbiased objective reader -- IS THERE ANY evidence in all these posts and pages given by ANY true believer in atheist darwinism where they ever said that Marsh actually FOUND his seven fossil arrangement SEQUENCED IN THE FOSSIL record??
In fact HAS ANY darwinist on record from the 1800's to the 1951 statement by Simpson (that IT IS NOT in the fossil record as Marsh "arranged it" ) mentioned a "dig" a "discovery of sequence IN the rocks" a claim that "this is how they were found" rather than "this is how they were arranged"??? If so -- what "dig" did they claim as having found that 7 fossil sequence?
None?
Why then this blind defense of the discredited debunked hoax?
Barbarian - why are you pretending that the "DATA showed" the sequence when even atheist darwinists themselves never it was a valid FOUND sequence rather than an "arranged sequence" ?
The objective unbiased reader will see through your "deny-all" policy for darwinism in the case of this famous hoax as "a thin yet desperate defense" of darwinism no matter what the damage to actual science!
Bob
Hint for the unbiased objective reader -- IS THERE ANY evidence in all these posts and pages given by ANY true believer in atheist darwinism where they ever said that Marsh actually FOUND his seven fossil arrangement SEQUENCED IN THE FOSSIL record??
In fact HAS ANY darwinist on record from the 1800's to the 1951 statement by Simpson (that IT IS NOT in the fossil record as Marsh "arranged it" ) mentioned a "dig" a "discovery of sequence IN the rocks" a claim that "this is how they were found" rather than "this is how they were arranged"??? If so -- what "dig" did they claim as having found that 7 fossil sequence?
None?
Why then this blind defense of the discredited debunked hoax?
Barbarian - why are you pretending that the "DATA showed" the sequence when even atheist darwinists themselves never it was a valid FOUND sequence rather than an "arranged sequence" ?
The objective unbiased reader will see through your "deny-all" policy for darwinism in the case of this famous hoax as "a thin yet desperate defense" of darwinism no matter what the damage to actual science!
Bob
B
BobRyan
Guest
The Barbarian said:
Feel free to elaborate on humans where a group is found with varying numbers of vertebrae or a varying number of ribs.
actual data would be useful at that point in your story.
Bob
Barbarian
Member
Abnormal Number of Ribs
Supernumerary ribs may rarely be seen incidentally as a normal variant. Increased numbers of ribs are seen in trisomy 21 syndrome and with the VATER association (Fig 2)(8,9). It is more common to see 11 pairs in the absence of associated anomalies; this situation occurs in 5%–8% of normal individuals. Eleven pairs of ribs occur in one-third of patients with trisomy 21 syndrome (9), as well as in association with cleidocranial dysplasia and campomelic dysplasia.
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/c ... ll/22/1/87
What you don't know, can hurt you, Bob.
This is why people who try to use the number of ribs to show that common descent is wrong, are such idiots. It varies within many mammalian species, including our own.
Supernumerary ribs may rarely be seen incidentally as a normal variant. Increased numbers of ribs are seen in trisomy 21 syndrome and with the VATER association (Fig 2)(8,9). It is more common to see 11 pairs in the absence of associated anomalies; this situation occurs in 5%–8% of normal individuals. Eleven pairs of ribs occur in one-third of patients with trisomy 21 syndrome (9), as well as in association with cleidocranial dysplasia and campomelic dysplasia.
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/c ... ll/22/1/87
What you don't know, can hurt you, Bob.
This is why people who try to use the number of ribs to show that common descent is wrong, are such idiots. It varies within many mammalian species, including our own.
B
BobRyan
Guest
Here we have an atheist darwinist paying "attention" to the skeletal differences - and so ruling out ancestor-descendant lineage.
Notice How "serious" they take the skeletal contradictions in their storytelling sequences depends on which species and which stories are being told.
Now see Barbarian -- what you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, because we all see you "pretending" to equivocate between individual abnormalities for humans vs entire SPECIES in the fossil record that you 'had hoped" to link to horses.
Good thing we have some atheist darwinists -- like those above who pay a bit more attention to the fossil skeletal contradictions before "telling stories" that are "not science".
Bob
Notice How "serious" they take the skeletal contradictions in their storytelling sequences depends on which species and which stories are being told.
Now see Barbarian -- what you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, because we all see you "pretending" to equivocate between individual abnormalities for humans vs entire SPECIES in the fossil record that you 'had hoped" to link to horses.
Good thing we have some atheist darwinists -- like those above who pay a bit more attention to the fossil skeletal contradictions before "telling stories" that are "not science".
Bob
Barbarian
Member
(Bob challenges Barbarian to show that some humans have a different number of ribs)
Let's take a look and see...what it says about ribs:
Abnormal Number of Ribs
It is more common to see 11 pairs in the absence of associated anomalies; this situation occurs in 5%–8% of normal individuals.
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/c ... ll/22/1/87
Turns out that they don't, Bob. Did you really think you were going to fool anyone by deleting what the paper said?
You challenged me to show that some humans have a different number of ribs. It's a fact. This is why your objection to horse evolution based on rib number is laughable. It varies even within a species.
No one reads your mantras any more, Bob. In the interest of bandwidth, why not just post them once and then refer us to "No. 1", "No. 2" etc.?
Since you were unable to find any significant differences between Mesohippus and Miohippus, let's go on...
Miohippus shows up in the fossil record, slightly before...
Parahippus
This one was a little larger than Miohippus, the side toes were even more reduced, the face just a bit longer, and the spine a bit less flexible. And in later examples of this speces, the molars had larger and more prominent crests, somewhat like those of modern horses. Note the increase in the spinal processes above the shoulder, a response to greater forces from a relatively and absolutely larger skull.
If you see any differences between these two greater than found within many mammalian species, point them out. If not, we'll go on in the next post.
Let's take a look and see...what it says about ribs:
Abnormal Number of Ribs
It is more common to see 11 pairs in the absence of associated anomalies; this situation occurs in 5%–8% of normal individuals.
http://radiographics.rsnajnls.org/cgi/c ... ll/22/1/87
Turns out that they don't, Bob. Did you really think you were going to fool anyone by deleting what the paper said?
You challenged me to show that some humans have a different number of ribs. It's a fact. This is why your objection to horse evolution based on rib number is laughable. It varies even within a species.
No one reads your mantras any more, Bob. In the interest of bandwidth, why not just post them once and then refer us to "No. 1", "No. 2" etc.?
Since you were unable to find any significant differences between Mesohippus and Miohippus, let's go on...
Miohippus shows up in the fossil record, slightly before...
Parahippus
This one was a little larger than Miohippus, the side toes were even more reduced, the face just a bit longer, and the spine a bit less flexible. And in later examples of this speces, the molars had larger and more prominent crests, somewhat like those of modern horses. Note the increase in the spinal processes above the shoulder, a response to greater forces from a relatively and absolutely larger skull.
If you see any differences between these two greater than found within many mammalian species, point them out. If not, we'll go on in the next post.
B
BobRyan
Guest
BobRyan said:
Hint the reason for mentiong people-groups is that the atheist darwinis claim is that entire SPECIES came up with contradictory sets of ribs and vertebrae "as direct descendants" -- not simply "a few individuals within a group".
BobRyan said:
How "serious" they take the skeletal contradictions in their storytelling sequences depends on which species and which stories are being told.
See -- what you pretend you don't know, can hurt you, Barbarian because we all see you "pretending" to equivocate between individual abnormalities for humans vs entire SPECIES in the fossil record that you 'had hoped" to link to horses.
This is why people who "pretend that the skeletal structure for entire descendant GROUPS can vary" appear to be stuck in a thinly veiled "deny-all" foxhole for atheist darwinism's junk science rather than accepting the facts of the light of day.
Sadly - the tactics you have resorted to above - are rife within the junk-science temples of atheist darwinism.[/quote]
Bob
Barbarian
Member
You asked me for evidence that humans vary in the number of ribs, and I showed you that they did. BTW, it has nothing whatever to do with Neandertals; H. sapiens differs in the number of ribs.
Since you weren't able to find any differences between Miohippus and Parahippus that would be greater than the differences within many mammalian species, we'll go on...
Parahippus:
And a little later in the rocks, we have:
Merychippus, a bit bigger, somewhat longer legs and face, and now even higher crowns on teeth.
If you can't find any differences greater than can be found in a single mammalian species today, we'll go on. Let me know.
Since you weren't able to find any differences between Miohippus and Parahippus that would be greater than the differences within many mammalian species, we'll go on...
Parahippus:
And a little later in the rocks, we have:
Merychippus, a bit bigger, somewhat longer legs and face, and now even higher crowns on teeth.
If you can't find any differences greater than can be found in a single mammalian species today, we'll go on. Let me know.
B
BobRyan
Guest
The Barbarian said:
I asked for "groups" not an individual variant -- some people are also born with conjoined spinal columns to their sibling. I am not talking about abberations of individual WITHIN a species -- I am talking about a parrallel to the wild claim that a single stable skeletal body type consistent for an entire group -- an entire species by atheist darwinist claims -- exists for humans. You show none as we all know and this is evidence by the fact that the oldest human fossils STILL have the same number of ribs.
You are simply barking up the wrong tree in a way incredibly obvious to the objective unbiased reader,
As pointed out in the case of humans anthropologists are not inclined to include "stories" about species with different bone structures being direct ANCESTORS to humans FOR THAT very reason!!
Bob
B
BobRyan
Guest
Hints as to the CORE junk-science METHOD used to promote atheist darwinist stories.
In a letter responding to complaints from evolutionists about the quotes above – Patterson gives this response.
In a letter responding to complaints from evolutionists about the quotes above – Patterson gives this response.
B
BobRyan
Guest
Atheist Darwinist DISCUSS their STORIES -
B
BobRyan
Guest
Marsh's 11 fossil "horse series" of 1870's remains as one of the most striking examples of a junk-science "horse story" ever told in an effort to prop up atheist darwinism. Yet Barbarian keeps up the attempt to "bring it back".
Barbarian your "Chain of fossils" storytelling apparently is not working with Gould.
EXERCISE for the reader: Define "Unsuccessful Lineage"
Bob
Barbarian your "Chain of fossils" storytelling apparently is not working with Gould.
EXERCISE for the reader: Define "Unsuccessful Lineage"
Bob