OLAADEGBU:

Is that how you answer questions from your teachers, by posting wiki links? 

Are you ignorant enough to think you can compare a Uni course with posting on a forum dedicated to a general readership?
Get serious.
Wiki is an excellent jumping off point to self education.
I've used wiki extensively here precisely because it is available 24/7 to everyone.

OLAADEGBU:

I will be happy if you can refer me to where I have done this so that I can make amends.

Just on this thread?
For starters, the cartoons aren't sourced.
I've pointed an example of where you do this on another thread, but for clarity, I stick to exaples on this thread alone.

OLAADEGBU:

In 2 Peter 3:5–6 Peter is criticizing uniformitarianism; the concept that the rate of geological change today has always been the same: “

"All things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."   

In opposing this view, Peter reminds his readers that scoffers deliberately ignore two events: the Creation and the Flood, which were unique in earth history.

Peter refers to this same Flood of Noah’s day in 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:4–5. 

In fact, there is no reference to a Luciferian Flood anywhere in Scripture, If you disagree can you point it out?

Where did you get this from?
I know.
But do the other readers?
It's from here, word for word:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n4/closing-gap

In any case, it's well accepted 2 Peter is a forgery.
I've pointed this out before.
2 Peter has no place in adiscussion about dinosaurs.

here's an intersting source for learning about dinosaurs:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/05/tracking-the-origin-of-dinosaurs/

Is the Smithsonian good enough for you, OLAADEGBU?

a good place to start the story of the dinosaurs is with the mass extinction that occurred about 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian. This event, the worst mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, drastically cut down the diversity of the dominant terrestrial vertebrates (such as synapsids, a group containing our ancestors and creatures more closely related to us than to reptiles) and allowed the surviving groups to radiate in a changed landscape. Among the groups to evolve in the wake of the disaster were the first archosaurs, and these were the earliest representatives of the group to which crocodiles, pterosaurs, dinosaurs and numerous other lineages of reptiles belonged.

As you can see, there is no question of dinos and crocodiles being considered 'of the same kind', as their families divided millions of years before Noah ever floated his boat.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


And the mass extinction referred to here is, of course, considerably previous to the one which took out the dinosaurs.

Viewed as a whole, the story of dinosaurs is a tale of how life on Earth reacts to mass extinctions. Dinosaurs rose to prominence because of mass extinctions, yet most of them (the exception being their bird descendants) succumbed to another ecological catastrophe 65 million years ago.

KAG:

There's no reason to expect to see "thousands or millions" of fossils, as fossilisation is a rare occurence. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find thousands and millions of fossils of the many species that have gone extinct in the last few decades.

There are reason to expect to see thousands if not millions of fossils of these missing links because big claims calls for big evidence!

KAG:

Further, on the cambrian explosion? Really? While a vast array of fossils of species that thrived during the cambrian explosion have been found, I'm not sure I understand why you - or anyone - would have reason to link the immediate ancestors of dinosaurs to the cambrian period. Let's chalk the presence of the cambrian explosion in your questions to a misunderstanding.

Can you please tell us what the common ancestors of dinosaurs was, cambrian period or not?

KAG:

Finally, there are some fossils that give some idea of what proto-archosaurs were like and indicate the probable evolution of dinosaurs. From TalkOrigins:

Claudiosaurus (late Permian) -- An early diapsid with several neodiapsid traits, but still had primitive cervical vertebrae & unossified sternum. probably close to the ancestry of all diapsides (the lizards & snakes & crocs & birds).
   
Planocephalosaurus(early Triassic) -- Further along the line that produced the lizards and snakes. Loss of some skull bones, teeth, toe bones.
   
Protorosaurus, Prolacerta (early Triassic) -- Possibly among the very first archosaurs, the line that produced dinos, crocs, and birds. May be "cousins" to the archosaurs, though.
   
Proterosuchus (early Triassic) -- First known archosaur.

Hyperodapedon, Trilophosaurus (late Triassic) -- Early archosaurs.


Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

Can you tell us a non-dinosaur animal that the dinosaur supposedly evolved from instead of speculating where they are likely to come from, and can you show us the evidence of the fossils that shows them in the process of evolving? for instance when they are not in their complete form but in the transitional form?
 

KAG:

Indeed. So when are you going to present some real evidence? Or are you under the impression that copy/pasting Points Refuted a Thousand Times (PRATTs) from Creationist websites, and posting cutesy cartoons suffice as evidence?

Is the copy/pasting you did on talkorgins.org the real evidence you want me to see, or does it answer the question at hand?  My cartoons have the real McCoy embedded in them.

Tail Bone
[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20100115.gif[/img]

PA1982:
. . .

In any case, it's well accepted 2 Peter is a forgery.
I've pointed this out before.
2 Peter has no place in adiscussion about dinosaurs.

I'm afraid you tend to make some rather sweeping and misinformed (maybe even uninformed) statements; even the scholars and academics that you want to rely on for this statement will not put it in those terms! You really could and should do better.

PA1982:

Are you ignorant enough to think you can compare a Uni course with posting on a forum dedicated to a general readership?
Get serious.
Wiki is an excellent jumping off point to self education.
I've used wiki extensively here precisely because it is available 24/7 to everyone.

Then spare us of sending us to wikipedia where everyone is free to post his idea, and if you insist then at least try understanding what it says and then use its point in making your case here.

PA1982:

Just on this thread?
For starters, the cartoons aren't sourced.
I've pointed an example of where you do this on another thread, but for clarity, I stick to exaples on this thread alone.

If you remove those evolutionary spectacles you will see the author of those cartoons.

PA1982:

Where did you get this from?
I know.
But do the other readers?
It's from here, word for word:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n4/closing-gap

If you are nairaland literate, if not computer literate, you would have seen the link to what I posted in the said cartoon. It is not just the wikipedia links that you have to click on, whenever you see hyperlinks try clicking on them before you start crying wolf.

PA1982:

In any case, it's well accepted 2 Peter is a forgery.
I've pointed this out before.
2 Peter has no place in adiscussion about dinosaurs.

Is that what you got from your wikipedia again? I wouldn't be surprised that you are given to fallacies.

Enigma:

I'm afraid you tend to make some rather sweeping and misinformed (maybe even uninformed) statements; even the scholars and academics that you want to rely on for this statement will not put it in those terms! You really could and should do better.

Not so, enigma.
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Would you like more?
It's hardly a sweeping or uninformed statement.

^^^  I thought you might bring those up -- especially the second one, so nothing new.

I will however post a short and easy read just for a little balance. http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm

On another day and another thread, the discussion of authorship could be pursued further; for now, I'll minimise the diversion of this thread. 

Edit: PS I noticed you didn't say your statement was not misinformed because even despite your links --- it was.

PA1982:

here's an intersting source for learning about dinosaurs:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/05/tracking-the-origin-of-dinosaurs/

Is the Smithsonian good enough for you, OLAADEGBU?

As you can see, there is no question of dinos and crocodiles being considered 'of the same kind', as their families divided millions of years before Noah ever floated his boat.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


And the mass extinction referred to here is, of course, considerably previous to the one which took out the dinosaurs.

You must have been watching too much entertainment films such as the Jurassic Park and confusing them to be scientific facts. Where you there to observe them evolving from the little animals? What was the common ancestor of these dinosaurs and what were they like when they were in their transitional forms, have they been found? if so show us the evidence.

Enigma, wrong again!
I posted two sources I thought would be easy to follow.
There are plenty more, as you probably know.
Off to read the link you provided, and in advance,thanks!

OLAADEGBU:


Then spare us of sending us to wikipedia where everyone is free to post his idea, and if you insist then at least try understanding what it says and then use its point in making your case here.

I'm not surprised you dislike Wiki.
I am surprised you didn't read the link.
Shall I spood feed it to you?
That way the readership will read it with you.
No problem.

OLAADEGBU:

If you remove those evolutionary spectacles you will see the author of those cartoons.

Hey, how about stopping the insults.
It really make you look like a bully

OLAADEGBU:
If you are nairaland literate, if not computer literate, you would have seen the link to what I posted in the said cartoon.  It is not just the wikipedia links that you have to click on, whenever you see hyperlinks try clicking on them before you start crying wolf.

 

Stop the slurs, OLAADEGBU!
It makes you look like a forum bully.
And of course you're right about the cartoons' hyperlinks.
Now.
Why didn't you source the articles you quoted and that I had to source for the thread?
I hope it won't happen again!

OLAADEGBU:
Is that what you got from your wikipedia again?  I wouldn't be surprised that you are given to fallacies.

More slurs!
Apart from showing the weakness of your argument, you're simply wrong wrong on that, as the sources I posted up show.

I'll start posting up a decon of the wiki article on the origin of the dinos for you, OLAADEGBU.
I'm sure it will be an interesting source of discussion.

Enigma:

I'm afraid you tend to make some rather sweeping and misinformed (maybe even uninformed) statements; even the scholars and academics that you want to rely on for this statement will not put it in those terms! You really could and should do better.

As long as her links and sources are anti Biblical she would swallow them hook line and 'stinker' as nothing but the whole truth.

OLAADEGBU:

You must have been watching too much entertainment films such as the Jurassic Park and confusing them to be scientific facts.  Where you there to observe them evolving from the little animals?  What was the common ancestor of these dinosaurs and what were they like when they were in their transitional forms, have they been found? if so show us the evidence.

I never saw those movies, I read the books.
Were they good movies, OLAADEGBU?
Did  you end up throwing your popcorn at the cinema screen in a fit of righteous indignation?

Transitional forms, OLAADEGBU?
Didn't you understand the anwersingenesis recommendation about arguing that?

Tell me, OLAADEGBU, did you examine the chart?
It's not as pretty as a cartoon, but interesting all the same.

Where you there to observe them evolving from the little animals?

That's a fantastic question, OLAADEGBU.
Did the same person who coached you so bady on identifying logical errors tell you ask that?

OLAADEGBU:

As long as her links and sources are anti Biblical she would swallow them hook line and 'stinker' as nothing but the whole truth.

An indication of her misinformation in this particular instance is a failure to understand or appreciate the difference between a pseudepigraph and a "forgery" ----- and that is even assuming for argument purposes only that the epistle is not rightly associated with the apostle Peter.

OLAADEGBU:

As long as her links and sources are anti Biblical she would swallow them hook line and 'stinker' as nothing but the whole truth.

And more slurs.
How Christian of you, OLAADEGBU!
Is that really all you have to bring to the table?
I'm not surprised!

Enigma:

An indication of her misinformation in this particular instance is a failure to understand or appreciate the difference between a pseudepigraph and a "forgery" ----- and that is even assuming for argument purposes only that the epistle is not rightly associated with the apostle Peter.

And wrong again, Enigma!
And right, at the same time.

A pseudoepigraph IS a forgery.
But you are right in that not all forgeries are pseudoepigraphs!

edited-
I'll leave it to you, Enigma, to explain that to OLAADEGBU.
Off to read your link! CU

PA1982:

I'm not surprised you dislike Wiki.
I am surprised you didn't read the link.
Shall I spood feed it to you?
That way the readership will read it with you.
No problem.

Whatever argument you'll like to make please make it without sending us to go and educate ourselves on your wiki links.  At least read and understand them and bring out the juicy points.

PA1982:

Hey, how about stopping the insults.
It really make you look like a bully

You obviously don't know what is called evolutionary spectacles.  It is a term used to describe different worldviews.  A biblical creationists views the world through the Bible while you evolutionists only see the world through Darwin's book. 

PA1982:

Stop the slurs, OLAADEGBU!
It makes you look like a forum bully.
And of course you're right about the cartoons' hyperlinks.
Now.
Why didn't you source the articles you quoted and that I had to source for the thread?
I hope it won't happen again!

You still didn't get it.  I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings but it was not intentional.  Clicking on the cartoon hyperlinks show the source of the articles posted.

PA1982:

More slurs!
Apart from showing the weakness of your argument, you're simply wrong wrong on that, as the sources I posted up show.

You are the one insulting Christians here, saying that the inspired Word of God penned by Peter is a forgery and this shows you have not done your home work.

PA1982:

I'll start posting up a decon of the wiki article on the origin of the dinos for you, OLAADEGBU.
I'm sure it will be an interesting source of discussion.

There is no need for that.  Simply post what you understand from it and if you cannot explain that to illiterates like us then don't bother posting such links.

Monkey Science

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20000710.gif[/img]

Why is it an insult if I call you a monkey but it is science if I say that you evolved from monkeys (or is it now ape-like creatures)?

PA1982:

And more slurs.
How Christian of you, OLAADEGBU!
Is that really all you have to bring to the table?
I'm not surprised!

Have you heard of the character called the accuser of the brethren?  He will be very proud of you doing a good job at that.  And I have more that I can bring to the table you better be surprised.  Have you ever heard of this verse of the Bible?

"All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." -- 1 Corinthians 15:39 The Evidence Bible

The Book of Genesis tells us that everything was created by God nothing evolved.  Every creature was given the ability to reproduce after its own kind as is stated ten times in Genesis 1.  Dogs do not produce cats.  Neither do cats and dogs have a common ancestry.  Dogs began as dogs and are still dogs.  They vary in species from Chihuahuas to Saint Bernards, but you will not find a "dat" or a "cog" (part cat or part dog) throughout God's creation.  Frogs don't reproduce oysters, cows don't have lambs and pregnant pigs don't give birth to rabbits.  God made monkeys as monkeys and man as man.  Each creature "brings forth after its own kind."  That's no theory; its a fact.

And again.

"So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good" (Genesis 1:21).

OLAADEGBU:

There are reason to expect to see thousands if not millions of fossils of these missing links because big claims calls for big evidence!

The conclusion you have made in your statement does not follow from the initial section of said statement. There's nothing particularly big about pointing out that evolution does occur. Even if it were a "big claim", it still doesn't follow that one would need to have thousands and millions of proto-archosaur fossils to understand the evolution of dinosaurs.

As I explained previously, fossilisation is indeed a very rare occurrence. If you don't think it is, I'll challenge you to find hundreds (not thousands) of dodo fossils. They only went extinct a few centuries ago.

Can you please tell us what the common ancestors of dinosaurs was, Cambrian period or not?

Cambrian period or not? What do you mean by that? Is that a way of skirting around the ignorance you displayed by putting the immediate forebears of dinosaurs in the Cambrian explosion? Jesus, man, don't do that,

Anyway, what is know is that dinosaurs probably evolved from tetrapods (dinosaurs are tetrapods) and possible ancestors include the likes of the Proterosuchus and the Protorosaurus.

Can you tell us a non-dinosaur animal that the dinosaur supposedly evolved from instead of speculating where they are likely to come from, and can you show us the evidence of the fossils that shows them in the process of evolving? for instance when they are not in their complete form but in the transitional form?

Picture of a fossil here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protorosaurus
Picture of another: http://fossils.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_tri/r37.html

I don't know what you mean by "in the process of evolving", but to forestall any misconceptions, you should know that evolution is not saltation. All animals are "in [their] complete form(s)".

Is the copy/pasting you did on talkorgins.org the real evidence you want me to see, or does it answer the question at hand? My cartoons have the real McCoy embedded in them.

It answers the question at hand, as it gives a list of fossils of transitional animals found that shed light on the possible evolution of dinosaurs.

When I say copy/paste, I mean just going to a arandomwebsite and copying everything someone else has written - often without reading or understanding the content - and pasting, wholesale, said content.

No, your cartoons really don't have any substance, especially when they are used to spam discussions, debates and arguments on a forum.

@KAG,

I was about to log off, infact I had already logged off before I saw your post.  Anyway I'll leave you with the appeal to authority but these are authorities in the field of the evolution theory whose ideologies you follow.  This is what they say about the gaps in the fossil record that they cannot deny exist.

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.  In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be."  (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.  Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. . . . , Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record.  The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."  (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, p. 229-230)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.  Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

"One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms."  (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration.  The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3) 

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:  the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record, The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59, 163)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record."  (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p. 22) 

"The fossil record is much less incomplete than is generally accepted."   (Paul, C.R.C, "The Adequacy of the Fossil Record," 1982, p. 75) 

"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing." (Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963, p. 114)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record.  Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology,"  (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984) 

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."  (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."   (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, p. 127) 

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important  places." (Hitching, Francis, The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong, Penguin Books, 1982, p.19)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after.  But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.  This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.  In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion, it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. . . . , Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89) 

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.  The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163)

OLAADEGBU:

@KAG,

I was about to log off, infact I had already logged off before I saw your post.  Anyway I'll leave you with the appeal to authority but these are authorities in the field of the evolution theory whose ideologies you follow.  This is what they say about the gaps in the fossil record that they cannot deny exist.

Then you should have stayed logged off, instead of posting only to knowingly commit a fallacy and copy/pasting quote-mines. You didn't even respond to my post, despite the fact you were addressing me.

"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)

We have another false capital letter.

The overall context is the "tempo and mode" of evolution and Simpson's pre-punctuated equilibria views of quantum evolution. It is in a section called "The Synthesis and the Fossil Record." The paragraph with the quote reads:

It is the gaps in the fossil record which, perhaps more than any other facet of the natural world, are dearly beloved by creationists. As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate "transitional" forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there [p. 65 | pg 66 ] seem to be. For example, Peripatus a lobe-legged, wormlike creature that haunts rotting logs in the Southern-Hemisphere, appears intermediate in many respects between tow of the major phyla on earth today -- the segmented worms and the arthropods. But few other phyla have such intermediates with other phyla, and when we scan the fossil record for them we find some, but basically little, help. Extinction has surely weeded out of the intermediate species, but on the other hand, the fossil record is not exactly teeming with their remains.

Skipping a paragraph:

Simpson thought that most of the fossil record amply supported Darwin's view. There was plenty of evidence, he felt, to show that ninety percent of evolution involved the gradual transition from one species to the [p. 66 | p. 67] next through time. When there were gaps between closely related species and genera [what creations often call "microevolution"] -- in other words when new species appeared abruptly in the fossil record with no smoothly intergradational intermediates between them and their ancestors -- he was content to blame it on the vagaries of preservation inherent in the fossil record, [Eldredge goes on to disagree with that.]

Later on in that rather long paragraph:

. . . Simpson pointed out, the transitions between major groups would typically take millions of years, and we should expect to find some fossil evidence of transitional forms. Not finding them very often, he deduced, implied that evolution sometimes went on rather quickly -- in brief, intense spurts. The presence of some intermediates (such as Archaeopteryx, the proto-bird) falsified Schindewolf's saltational notations. But the relative scarcity of such intermediates bespoke a major mode of evolution producing truly rapid change -- a mode Simpson called "quantum evolution."

Skipping to the very end of the section on page 69:

. . . Hence, today's controversy -- whch [sic] should chill, rather than gladden, creationists' hearts. And at the center of today's evolutionary wranglings, we have the by-now familiar "force": natural selection.

Eldredge deals with gaps again in the section "Oh, Those Gaps!" (pp. 120-128) in the chapter "Creationists Attack: II." In it he makes it very clear that there are transitions in the fossil record and gives several examples.

"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. , Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."

- J. (catshark) Pieret

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)

[Following right after]

"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.

[Snip discussion of boid snakes, pocket gophers, kangaroo rats and pocket mice]

"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .

[Snip discussion of non-Darwinian theories of discontinuous change in species.]

"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

A more correct citation would be:

Gould, Stephen J. 1980. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (paperback), p. 189.

- J. (catshark) Pieret

The rest of the contexts for that sorry copy/paste hatchet job may be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

You asked for it.  Here are more quotes from scientists, most of whom are evolutionists admitting that evolution is a joke, a game carried too far.  They are at a loss when it comes to the foundational questions.  Let me entertain you with a few of them here.

"One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles,  "A Divine Design:  Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb.  In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."  (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

"The origin of life is still a mystery. As long as it has not been demonstrated by experimental realization, I cannot conceive of any physical or chemical condition [allowing evolution], I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation, can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles.  How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?"  (d'Aubigne, Merle, "How Is It Possible to Escape the Idea of Some Intelligent and Organizing Force?" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 158)

"Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance."  (Rubin, Harry, "Life, Even in Bacteria, Is Too Complex to Have Occurred by Chance" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

"The third assumption was the Viruses, Bacteria, Protozoa and the higher animals were all interrelated, We have as yet no definite evidence about the way in which the Viruses, Bacteria or Protozoa are interrelated." (Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergammon Press, 1960, p. 151)

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.  They ask themselves, "How did life arise out of inanimate matter?  And what is the probability of that happening?" And to their chagrin they have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.  Scientists do not know how that happened, and furthermore, they do not know the chance of its happening.  Perhaps the chance is very small, and the appearance of life on a planet is an event of miraculously low probability.  Perhaps life on the earth is unique in this Universe.  No scientific evidence precludes that possibility."  (Jastrow, Robert, The Enchanted Loom: Mind In the Universe, 1981, p. 19)

The word evolution normally means change as Obama puts it but the culture today has now taken it to mean what Charles Darwin has made it to be, and that is the goo to you via the zoo hypothesis over millions of years.

Darwin's Day
[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20020923.gif[/img]

OLAADEGBU:

You are there making side comments when you are supposed to help your bedfellows out by answering the pertinent question.  How do you guys do your assignment at college?  Do you cite wikipedia links as your reference?  There are some questions that can't be answered by google you know.

It is a side comment because i am hardly interested in the thread not that it offers any sort of knowledge that is not commonplace in these times; Yes everything on this thread you can get from a 15 yr old. (If you have had access to Encyclopedia Britannica) I really respect your resilience in holding the fort for (IMHO) "The Evangelical Propaganda" (no disrespect intended) but it will serve you well to recognize that there is enlightenment outside your Biblical (Scriptural) Knowledge base. I am not upset but it is unpleasant to see you out of character and because you are "usually" not given to emotional outbursts, your restrained insults (slurs) even makes it painfully obvious that you are upset hence not in the mood for intelligent discourse.

I will ignore your comment on me being bedfellows with the evolutionists I actually believe in sentient beings who took this universe as a college experiment, unfortunately our budding teenage scientist (God) has moved on to interesting things i.e Weed and fat-bottomed girls

PA1982:
 
I never saw those movies, I read the books.
Were they good movies, OLAADEGBU?
Did  you end up throwing your popcorn at the cinema screen in a fit of righteous indignation?

What's the difference?  There's a new one now called the return of the apes.

Darwin's Day
[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20000417.gif[/img]

PA1982:

Transitional forms, OLAADEGBU?
Didn't you understand the anwersingenesis recommendation about arguing that?

You can say intermediate forms if you prefer that.

PA1982:

Tell me, OLAADEGBU, did you examine the chart?

Are they as good as my cartoons?

PA1982:

It's not as pretty as a cartoon, but interesting all the same.

Nah.  I like them pretty.

PA1982:

That's a fantastic question, OLAADEGBU.
Did the same person who coached you so bady on identifying logical errors tell you ask that?

Oh I forgot that you read about it even though no one witnessed it when it was evolving.

lagerwhenindoubt:

It is a side comment because i am hardly interested in the thread not that it offers any sort of knowledge that is not commonplace in these times; Yes everything on this thread you can get from a 15 yr old. (If you have had access to Encyclopedia Britannica) I really respect your resilience in holding the fort for (IMHO) "The Evangelical Propaganda" (no disrespect intended) but it will serve you well to recognize that there is enlightenment outside your Biblical (Scriptural) Knowledge base. I am not upset but it is unpleasant to see you out of character and because you are "usually" not given to emotional outbursts, your restrained insults (slurs) even makes it painfully obvious that you are upset hence not in the mood for intelligent discourse.

I will ignore your comment on me being bedfellows with the evolutionists I actually believe in sentient beings who took this universe as a college experiment, unfortunately our budding teenage scientist (God) has moved on to interesting things i.e Weed and fat-bottomed girls

Bedfellows in this context actually mean colleagues.  I wonder how you guys read differently into what I say, is it because we view things differently?  It would be a good idea to once in a while check up the different meanings to words other than what we get from wikipedia.

PA1982:

Not so, enigma.
http://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Would you like more?
It's hardly a sweeping or uninformed statement.

PA1982

I have now managed to read the article in your first link (I originally thought it was another site). Do you realise that the article actually disagrees with you and confirms what I said? Do you realise that the article actually concludes that the "critics"' argument that the apostle Peter did not write that epistle is not proved? Do you realise that the article actually concludes in favour of the liklelihood of Petrine authorship? The article even cites one of the better genuine scholars in the field - i.e. Bauckham! 

U cannot teach an old dog a new trick.
"do not cast pearls before swine."
Trying to educate a bunch semi- illiterates about earht's history is futile.
"A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still". You dare not try to educate these plebians. It confuses them. You have to brake it down into tiny chewable bits accoding to the size of their minds, otherwise ur just aggrevating yourself for nothing.

globexl:

U cannot teach an old dog a new trick.
"do not cast pearls before swine."
Trying to educate a bunch semi- illiterates about earht's history is futile.
"A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still". You dare not try to educate these plebians. It confuses them. You have to brake it down into tiny chewable bits accoding to the size of their minds, otherwise your just aggrevating yourself for nothing.

You are a shining example of a pearl aren't you

hey, Enigma!
One of the strangest things I've come accross in this on-line searching is the strange reluctance of the article writers to draw a logical conclusion from their findings.
I get the impression the authors' objective is to lull the readership into acceptance in spite of the evidence.
Here's yet another example:
http://newapologia.com/who-wrote-2-peter/

I see the argument by cartoon and oneliner slurs continues!
So here's a video to accompany it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpe2n6FA_DE&feature=fvsr

And another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ


Well.
OLAADEGBU can't cope with the Smithsonian site on the subject of the origins of dinosaurs.
He feels Wiki isn't a good enough source for a readership he chooses to feed with quote-mining and cartoons.

Let's try the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11481232

he first dinosaur-like creatures emerged up to nine million years earlier than previously thought.

That is the conclusion of a study on footprints found in 250 million-year-old rocks from Poland.

Writing in a Royal Society journal, a team has named the creature that made them Prorotodactylus.

The prints are small - measuring a few centimetres in length - which suggests the earliest dinosaur-like animals were about the size of domestic cats.

They would have weighed at most a kilogram or two, they walked on four legs and they were very rare animals.

Their footprints comprised only two or three per cent of the total footprints on this site.

The footprints date to just two million years after the end-Permian mass extinction - the worst mass extinction in the history of the planet.


According to Stephen Brusatte, from the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who led the research: "In geological terms this is just the blink of an eye."

He told BBC News: "We can basically say that the dinosaur lineage originated in the immediate aftermath of this extinction which is a completely new idea and a very radical re-interpretation of the early history of dinosaurs".

In the end-Permian extinction event, more than 90% of all life on Earth was wiped out due to massive volcanic eruptions, sudden global warming and the stagnation of the oceans.

Up until recently, scientists had thought that dinosaurs emerged 15 to 20 million years after the mass extinction, when the planet had become more habitable.

But the new footprints suggest that the rise of dinosaurs was intimately related to the devastating extinction event.
Prorotodactylus Prorotodactylus was about the size of a domestic cat, say the researchers

"Without this mass extinction there would never have been dinosaurs," said Mr Brusatte.

"There's a degree of symmetry about that because when dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, that opened space for mammals," he added.

This article is over a year old, granted, but it's interesting to see the news that relates dinos to the end-Permian extinction event, isn't it.
Ah.
No flood in that extinction event.
Volcanoes.

PA1982:

hey, Enigma!
One of the strangest things I've come accross in this on-line searching is the strange reluctance of the article writers to draw a logical conclusion from their findings.
I get the impression the authors' objective is to lull the readership into acceptance in spite of the evidence.
Here's yet another example:
http://newapologia.com/who-wrote-2-peter/
. . . .

I hope that, at the least, you will be more cautious from now on in making those rather sweeping statements which I feel belittle you and paint you in a less clever light than I actually think you are to be honest.

OLAADEGBU:

You asked for it.  Here are more quotes from scientists, most of whom are evolutionists admitting that evolution is a joke, a game carried too far.  They are at a loss when it comes to the foundational questions.  Let me entertain you with a few of them here.

The word evolution normally means change as Obama puts it but the culture today has now taken it to mean what Charles Darwin has made it to be, and that is the goo to you via the zoo hypothesis over millions of years.

Well, colour me surprised. Not only didn't you address my post or admit the inherent deceit apparent in copy/pasted quote-mines, you've gone and done even more. Put simply: You are lying for Jesus. You continue to show yourself a fraudulent proponent of your faith but your strange insistence in promoting quote-mines, and copy/pasting fallacies and misrepresentations.

 

 "One of its (evolutions) weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged." (Sir John Eccles, "A Divine Design: Some Questions on Origins" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 203)

From the preface of the book from which the below quotes are taken:

   "Cosmos, Bios, Theos makes no pretension of being a statistically significant survey of the religious beliefs of modern scientists. The scientists interviewed for this anthology are, for the most part, known to be theistic or at least sympathetic to a religious view of reality." (xiii)

First of all, the page number is wrong; this quote appears on p.163

Second, his 1963 Nobel was in Physiology/Medicine.

Third, he believes in a strong version of the Anthropic principle, that the universe "was wonderfully organized and planned to give the immensity, to give the size, to give the opportunity for the Darwinist evolutionary process that give rise to us." (p.162) He believes that ", brain and body are in the evolutionary process but not yet fully explained in this way. But the conscious self is not in the Darwinian evolutionary process at all. I think it is a divine creation." (p.164) It appears that he does not doubt evolution at all, but reserves the "ensoulment of humanity" to the work of providence.

- Hier05ant

   "Scientists have to be humble. We have not said the last word. It is the best story we have got but it has to be amended all the time. It should be regarded not as a doctrine but as a scientific hypothesis. We have to look at it all the time to see its weak points and point them out and not try to cover up the weak points. One of its weak points is that it does not have any way in which conscious life could have emerged, in which living organisms could become conscious in the evolutionary process and how in the end they could become self-conscious as we are." page 163 [sic!]

- Tom (TomS) Scharle

 

"I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived with the constricted worldview to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe." (Wolfgang, Smith, "The Universe is Ultimately to be Explained in Terms of a Metacosmic Reality" in Margenau and Varghese (eds.), Cosmos, Bios, Theos, p. 113)

[Note the above quote from the preface of the book, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, regarding quote number 63.]

First, he is a Professor of Mathematics, specializing in aerodynamics problems. (p.111)

Second, he is not an evolutionist. The sentence immediately preceding the quoted material is "I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps." That's right folks: he denies speciation entirely, and thinks that even God Himself cannot account for the origin of species (someone call the [Discovery Institute], )

- Hier05ant

   "I am opposed to Darwinism, or better said, to the transformist hypothesis as such, no matter what one takes to be the mechanism or cause (even perhaps teleological or theistic) of the postulated macroevolutionary leaps. I am convinced, moreover, that Darwinism (in whatever form) is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of biological origins that can be conceived within the constricted Weltanschauung to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe."

- Tom (TomS) Scharle

The context for the other hatchet jobs can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

When these questions are advanced as a debative ground within the context of the thought development in favour of an atheistic worldview, the calm and conscientous atheist or agnostic should be keen enough to remind himself of the distinction between -

1. ~ the idea of fossil findings, the age of which may appear to discredit certain views of biblical creative chronology and -

2. ~ the idea that such findings therefore equate to the non-existence of a creative element - even outside the context and worldview of human religions.

The first idea, though disputable, can be heard. The second idea, which to my mind is the meat of the matter, is a logical leap of unfathomable proportions.

KAG:

Well, colour me surprised. Not only didn't you address my post or admit the inherent deceit apparent in copy/pasted quote-mines, you've gone and done even more. Put simply: You are lying for Jesus. You continue to show yourself a fraudulent proponent of your faith but your strange insistence in promoting quote-mines, and copy/pasting fallacies and misrepresentations.

It is you who have failed to answer where dinosaurs came from that is guilty of fraud.  You claim to know more than all your evolutionary masters that I quoted who said that there were gaps in the fossil record.  There are no intermediate forms between the cambrian and the precambrian fossils, how do you explain that?  All you have to show are the alleged forms which cannot be found in museums when there ought to be thousands and millions of the intermediate forms in the fossil record.  Big claims require real evidence.

OLAADEGBU:

It is you who have failed to answer where dinosaurs came from that is guilty of fraud.

Posts I made in this thread on the origins of dinosaurs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747044.32.html#msg9087792
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747044.64.html#msg9099977

What's more you can't claim that you didn't see those posts because you wrote:

OLAADEGBU "I was about to log off, infact I had already logged off before I saw your post."

So, which one of us has been fraudulent? Then again, I suppose it's easy to justify if you believe you're lying for Jesus.

You claim to know more than all your evolutionary masters that I quoted who said that there were gaps in the fossil record.  There are no intermediate forms between the cambrian and the precambrian fossils, how do you explain that?

My evolutionary masters? Good heavens, man, just because Christians, like yourself, need masters in the shape of pastors and popes to direct their every move should not be any reason to project your lifestyle on to me.

On the subject of your quote-mines. I addressed that here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-747044.64.html#msg9100320

You'll also notice - if you bothered to take the time to read - that when the quotes aren't taken out of context, they're are more or less fabricated. Again, it's the business of lying for Jesus. It's these strange Creationist's poor attempts at sleight of hand, that makes one wonder how they can claim to be witnesses for a god-man that they assure us is the lord of truths.

  All you have to show are the alleged forms which cannot be found in museums when there ought to be thousands and millions of the intermediate forms in the fossil record.  Big claims require real evidence.

"As I explained previously, fossilisation is indeed a very rare occurrence. If you don't think it is, I'll challenge you to find hundreds (not thousands) of dodo fossils. They only went extinct a few centuries ago."

KAG:

The conclusion you have made in your statement does not follow from the initial section of said statement. There's nothing particularly big about pointing out that evolution does occur. Even if it were a "big claim", it still doesn't follow that one would need to have thousands and millions of proto-archosaur fossils to understand the evolution of dinosaurs.

The first fraud is that the particle to human evolution does not occur as this shows in the fossil record.  What is the evidence that an amoeba can change into a man over millions of years?     

KAG:

As I explained previously, fossilisation is indeed a very rare occurrence. If you don't think it is, I'll challenge you to find hundreds (not thousands) of dodo fossils. They only went extinct a few centuries ago.

The onus is on you to tell us where all the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers are?

KAG:

Cambrian period or not? What do you mean by that? Is that a way of skirting around the ignorance you displayed by putting the immediate forebears of dinosaurs in the Cambrian explosion? Jesus, man, don't do that,

If you cannot show us where the millions of transitional fossils in the Precambrian and Cambrian layers are then show us examples of such intermediate fossils in museums.

KAG:

Anyway, what is know is that dinosaurs probably evolved from tetrapods (dinosaurs are tetrapods) and possible ancestors include the likes of the Proterosuchus and the Protorosaurus.

Speculations and assumptions are now your evidence that dinosaurs were the descendants of Proterosuchus, did you see it happening or was it Darwin that observed it?  What has speculation and guess work got to do with science.

KAG:

Picture of a fossil here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protorosaurus
Picture of another: http://fossils.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_tri/r37.html

Are you saying that these are the intermediate forms in the Cambrian explosion if not can they be found in any of the museums?

KAG:

I don't know what you mean by "in the process of evolving", but to forestall any misconceptions, you should know that evolution is not saltation. All animals are "in [their] complete form(s)".

The Cambrian Explosion and the lack of transitional forms shows that Darwinism evolution did not occur.

KAG:

It answers the question at hand, as it gives a list of fossils of transitional animals found that shed light on the possible evolution of dinosaurs.

I have posted quotes from reputable evolutionists who have attested to the contrary why should I trust you and your dodgy skeptical links?

KAG:

When I say copy/paste, I mean just going to a arandomwebsite and copying everything someone else has written - often without reading or understanding the content - and pasting, wholesale, said content.

The quotes of those reputable evolutionists are self explanatory, they don't need your twist to be understood.  Here is what some of the reputable and established evolutionists had to say when trying to answer where dinosaurs came from:

"The question of the origin of dinosaurs is one that has puzzled paleontologists for many years."

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs, Dr. David Norman, 1985, p. 186. (Dr Norman is a lecturer in Zoology)

This is another quote from an authoritative book in the field of the evolution: The Natural History Museum Book of Dinosaurs, 1998, p.12

"Where did dinosaurs come from?  That apparently simple question has been the subject of intense debate amongst scientists for over 150 years, . . ."

What book or journal have you published that would make anyone take you serious?
 

KAG:

No, your cartoons really don't have any substance, especially when they are used to spam discussions, debates and arguments on a forum.

The cartoons illustrate how the Word of God is certain and surer than your evolution that has no foundation.

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water" (2 Peter 3:5).

The Bible says here that people like you "deliberately forget" that God created the universe from nothing, you forget that God spoke it all into existence and the reason you guys forget is sin and that you don't want to admit that a powerful, Infinite uncreated God created you.  It is because you don't want to admit that God is in control of all things including yourselves is the reason why you persist on propagating this satanic indoctrination of evolution as an alternative to the creation account.  You will rather believe that you evolved from slime over million of years than to obey God.