We have tested and verified, your story that we made it all up was easy enough for you to make up.
Notice that no matter how many atheist evolutionists condemn the exposed fraud and junk-science that went into stories such as the Marsh's horse series -- the attempt is made to claim I am the one that did it --
And what response do we get from evolutionists 60 years after the fraud was discovered? "still doubling down".
The "emotional effect" of arranging something that "looks like" it would go in a certain sequence if one were trying to tell a certain kind of "story" is just too tempting from the evolutionist.
=========================================================================
Caught in the act (Watch as these atheist evolutionist scientists confess)
G.G. Simpson in 1951 – evolutionism is a “done deal” and horse series is one of the clearest and most convincing example.
“The
history of the horse family is still one of the clearest and most convincing for showing that organisms really have evolved. . . There really is no point nowadays in continuing to collect and to study fossils simply to determine whether or not evolution is a fact.
The question has been decisively answered in the affirmative.” 2 Simpson,
George G. 1951. Horses. Oxford University Press.
Outright confession –about the fraudulent horse series on display in the Smithsonian
"The uniform continuous
transformation of Hyracotherium 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.
"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.
================================
How is it that the history of the horse family - on display in the Smithsonian to this very day in 2016 as an arrangement fabricated by Othaniel Marsh -- is a fossil sequence "story" declared to "
have never happened in nature" in the 1950's - by their own atheist scientists.
Irrefutable evidence of the junk-science nature of blind-faith evolutionism -- does not "vanish" simply because your Urantia preference does not find that fact of history 'convenient' -- I think we can all see that.
Lets get it straight what happened with the horse series. There was no disproof of evolution with further fossil finds. Rather, we found so many fossils that tracing an exact path for evolution between them was difficult
False.
"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.
Your fictional revisionism claims that Eldredge thinks it is 'lamentable" that "so many proofs of horse evolution are now known"
- as IF that was the case with Othaniel Marsh's fraudulent horse series.
The fraud was simply "arranging fossils' regardless of how they are actually found in the fossil record -- merely 'wishing' that it might be true that they would have been found in that emotionally pleasing sequence showing smooth orthogenic transformation over time.
It was a "story easy enough tell" but it certainly was NOT - science.
Thus even the atheist evolutionist can admit "it was LAMENTABLE"
Meanwhile the T.E. is stuck at "all news is good news! err... umm... right?"
The revisionist history your are attempting with this confirmed fraud does not hold up.
And what is more - junk-science should be expected to employ many decades long frauds to tell it's stories and then continue with that same story after it was exposed - simply for 'emotional effect' - a pleasing sequence to view.
