But what does rub me the wrong way to put it mildly - and let me apriori state that whether I agree with the apologetics author or not is irrelevant - is the slight of hand with which the apologetics author, Lyons, dismisses and ridicules the author [Rubin], just after he has used his work and research to "prove his [Lyons'] point!"

This is what lyons writes to close out the article:

"Ruben <is correct about one thing>: the often-parroted claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds is merely an assumption (and a wrong one at that!). Yet, <Ruben and others are sadly mistaken that birds evolved into dinosaurs>. Both of these conclusions are simply unjustified, unproven interpretations of the fossil record. The fossil record in no way proves evolution. Dinosaurs never evolved into birds and birds never evolved into dinosaurs. God created these animals on days five and six of Creation...and no fossil has ever contradicted this fact." (emphasis added by me.)

Aside from the fact that Lyons is factually incorrect in his rapid judgements in the by me highlighted text; how about that for Mantra singing!!?, something Lyons accuses the (Dyno-birdy) Evolutionists of:

"The song has been playing like a broken record for decades: “Evolution is true. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is true. Evolution is a fact....” As long as this mantra is repeated by enough intellectuals, it seems many will become and/or remain enamored with evolutionary theory [...]"

I'd really be wary to affiliate myself intellectually with this type writing, and possibly the culture in which it originates.

The price of chocolate is at risk of huge rise after a single speculator bought up a huge amount of the world's cocoa beans.

The £658million deal for 440,000 tonnes of cocoa - equal to around seven per cent of annual worldwide production - has already driven prices up to their highest level since 1977.

Investment fund Armajaro is banking on prices rising even further ahead of Christmas production.

One analyst said: "By doing this they've cornered the market and taken control of the entire cocoa supply in Europe."

Willie's Wonky Chocolate Factory star Willie Harcourt-Cooze - who imports his own beans from South America - said big firms like Nestle and Cadbury would have to raise prices or use "inferior" ingredients.

The International Cocoa Organisation said: "Almost all chocolate companies have increased prices in the past two years."

I am NOT a FOOL.

There is no fight to engage in in my opinion, only intelligent, sharp reasoned debate and logic will then suffice. And after that turn a deaf ear if necessary. I think our creator would agree and the examples from the writers' accounts of arguments in the New Testament are conducted without sarcasm and ridicule. Hardly any, I think ;)

I've read several publications and books even, recently (have you read What Darwin Got Wrong, by Fodor & Piattelli - ? - first edition in 2010 btw) - and it is quite possible and "easy", a walk in the park most of the time, to smash the evolutionary bed-time stories to pieces.

Also - and granted - there is nothing wrong with ridicule if one feels the urge(ncy) to do so, but the downsides are all too well known.

Come now, you know analogies are purposely strained to make a point.

<There is no fight to engage in in my opinion, only intelligent, sharp reasoned debate and logic will then suffice. >

I disagree. I think it is a pitched battle and the troops of the other side are working to endoctrinate the kids since they can't win an intellectual battle with adults.

<And after that turn a deaf ear if necessary. I think our creator would agree and the examples from the writers' accounts of arguments in the New Testament are conducted without sarcasm and ridicule. Hardly any, I think ;) >

I see Paul recorded as debating his doctrine for over two years. I think I could round up a few instances of sarcasm and ridicule. The fact you cite the NT indicates to me you're aware there's more than a few instances recorded in the Old Testament. I would agree that overuse would weaken the argument. There's a time and a place for everything, as we can see by looking at two consecutive proverbs. Proverbs 26:4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

And your citations from PROVERBS are indeed spot on in that respect. (Also check out Maleachi 3:6 in this context.)

<I think it is a pitched battle and the troops of the other side are working to endoctrinate the kids since they can't win an intellectual battle with adults.> That's what I have noticed (and mentioned on previous occasions as the main "axe") and as always you guys are ahead of us here in Europe, where the discussion is hardly existent AFAIK... more "dormant"... Talk about frustrating...

I do however think you should have a problem with the double layer and standard that Lyons applies to Rubin's article and research that for 90% fits Lyons' agenda and agrees and provides ammo for the main criticism. But then Lyons starts firing at Rubin. Rather low-class, self defeating, incongruent with the precision used previously in the argument.

Is that just ascribable to us wearing, perhaps, different colored glasses?

I hope not, since the desire to aim for and maintain the highest quality - frustration taken into account - should be priority.

I'll post the Rubin article a bit later; have to re-read it again too I suppose.

On a related note: is the Apologetics site you often refer to "Creationist, in General", or are they (predominantly) sporting Young Earth authors to write the articles, run the website?

<What/Who was first> And regarding the egg-chicken issue within evolution: isn't it strange that this issue gets so much attention, and the human sperm cell, ovum, THE HUMAN ZYGOTIC EGG, etc., do not receive much attention and are equally source for upheaval, debate and thorough examination? Or is that one solved yet? So where did the "reproductive organs appear in the fossil record"??

Another fine point is how evolution of the sperm cell and its propelling mechanism has taken place in the male when only much later, at the end of the evolutionary journey, the use becomes clear when the sperm cell travels through the female body ejected by a fully equipped male into a fully equipped female. Without any foresight and just a result of natural selection acting upon random mutations. Aha.

Then from there, bear with me, you can copy/paste the Rubin article URL from the references area...

I was quite clearly in verify-mode last night, but now with the above link you can read both articles.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/7/2...

This part impressed me, as quoted by Lyons (from the previous link): <

What’s more, “the group that birds are assumed to have been derived from, may not even have been dinosaurs” (Ruben, emp. added)! Even though for many years, innumerable impressionable minds have been taught the “factuality” of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, evolutionary zoologist John Ruben says this was only an assumption. Scientists have never proven that dinosaurs evolved into birds. In fact, based upon recent model glide tests done by several scientists around the country (see Alexander, et al., 2010), a growing number of evolutionists appear to be “broadly at odds with one another” (Ruben).>

Any news on the apologetics folk?