Well, well, well, now we have a new explaination for holes in the fossil record.?

Question

The chinese have been eating the dinosaur bones!!! And I'm sure other primative cultures did the same in other countries as well. Do you xians still think the devil is hiding bones in the ground to de-bunk Genesis? Professor Dong says otherwise. LOL "Dong" LOL

Some xians said that satan hid dinosaur bones in here before. I guess you played hookie that day. LOL

Answer 1

Watch -- now there'll be a massive effort by Christians to consume the evidence, so there will no longer be anything to contradict their precious bible....

Answer 2

As a christian, I never thought the devil was hiding bones in the ground, but thanks for the stereotyping which proves that all atheists aren't the tolerant, logical/rational people they pretend to be. Yes indeed, they'll see some article like this and suddenly think "wow, ammunition!" How very juvenile.

The "some christians" you refer to were most likely a couple of 8-year olds. To stereotype an entire belief system on one or two idiots is kinda like me saying that all atheists are bashers and trolls, when in fact I know that mature atheists aren't immature little twits like we have in this section. I don't think the mature atheists would really want to be stereotyped in the same category as bashers and trolls, it would be an insult.

Answer 3

The devil isn't hiding bones in the ground. Canadians are. This is why Canada is home to some of the largest fossil sites in the world.

Answer 4

No, Christians don't believe the devil hid bones in the ground to de-bunk Genesis. Geesh! Where do people get this stuff!

Answer 5

In infinite Xtian wisdom, they now say Dinos were on the ark.

I'd just love to know how Noah fed two Trex's for 40 days and where he got all the fresh water for over a million animals for that long.

Answer 6

No no, the devil isn't hiding the bones, it's the atheists who plant them there. I've heard them conspiring myself.

Answer 7

That "explanation" is more ridiculous than the "devil hiding bones theory"

Answer 8

well most the time have read that the devil is hiding the bones it comes from athesits . as for holes in the fossil records every major darwinist will admit to that. yes the fossil record does not show evolution. here are some qoutes.

Darwin himself said in his book The Origin of Species:-

"Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".



The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:-

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ........ All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Gould, 1977).

Also Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History also said:- "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated" (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).

The prominent British evolutionist Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna, has made the following comment: "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).

Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve.’

‘The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true.’1

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’


Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to point out:-

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]


George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:-

"...Every palaeontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360

Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species (Kemp, 1982)

Answer 9

No doubt many Christians have tried to hide evidence over the years...

Answer 10

I saw that too. Dragon bones. ROFL