Page 30: Tells all about the discovery of Protoceratops and its nesting grounds. Note how this ignores the fact that the first dinosaur egg, laid by the sauropod Hypselosaurus, was found in 1869. The reason Roy Chapman Andrews became famous is because he was the first person to discovered an actual dinosaur nesting ground containing eggs, babies, juveniles, sub-adults, adults— fossil remains of Protoceratops of all stages in life. At the bottom of the page contains a text where Protoceratops is stupidly regarded as a "dragon" while it features none of what a dragon has (i.e. serpentine body, women's genitals, impenetrable scales, poison breath, etc.)
Page 31: Since when is evolution harmful and dangerous just like creationism? Creationism is really the one that's harmful and dangerous for the way it slanderously attack anyone and anything that opposes them in every way. If evolution leads people to commit atrocities such as violence and genocide, creationists and all their followers do a very fine job perpetuating the myth by being exactly what they claim evolution leads people to do themselves. Heck. Even the creationists at Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International won't mind supporting genocide as long as it is in God's favor, or their own favor for that matter! This kind of a claim is a form of propaganda used to rally creationist followers to do completely everything they accuse evolutionists of themselves.
This page contains nothing but strawman definitions of evolution which creationists claims that evolution "is the theory or view that primitive forms of life, simple cells, arose in ancient seas on planet earth by chance or fortunate accident from non-living matter some 3.5 billion years ago." Wrong on that one! Evolution simply means "change over time." Evolution, meaning "unfolding" is defined as "a change within populated groups occurring over a period of time." Everything evolves, never by accident or chance. Even creationists teach evolution whether they admit to this or not. What the two creationists say about evolution is wrong.
"Life only comes from life, and the first life on earth was created by the living God."
This does not bar God from allowing all Creation to change over time. Even creationists teach this by saying that "The Bible tells us that God created each animal 'after its kind.'" then turn around and preach that all life forms developed rapidly from the imaginary "created kinds" into huge varieties of forms over a period of a few hundred years. Then turn around and say this is not evolution while this is without doubt evolution in the fast lane being taught while hiding the motive through creating false, ignorant, strawman statements like, "A frog, an amphibian, will never lay and egg that becomes anything but a frog…" to make it as if they're just naturally made cloning machines that produce boring carbon copies of the parent, never mind the fact that reptiles evolved from extinct forms of amphibians that resemble salamanders, not frogs.
The two creationists claim that the theory of evolution is harmful because it causes people everywhere to abandon the Bible. If so, then creationists are doing a great job gravely perpetuating this by causing people everywhere to abandon the Bible only by rendering God's Word into a book of lies by saying God did this according to His Word while He in fact didn't.
The two creationists tried to make evolution false and ridiculous by claiming that evolutionists allegedly imagined that all horned dinosaurs descended from Protoceratops, the so-called "hornless" ceratopsian over a period of over 25 million years. They also claimed falsely that there's absolutely no evidence in the fossil record to support these so-called "imaginary claims" about Protoceratops branching off into large and short frilled ceratopsians according to what they show in the made up so-called "false evolutionary development of horned dinosaurs" below.
What is shown above is strawman. If what they arrogantly claim to be so above then how do the two creationists explain the fact that Protoceratops has a small incipient horn growing on its snout? How do they explain clades? And the fact that these so-called "imaginary claims" about the [sic] "false evolutionary development of horned dinosaurs" shown in the strawman chart above is completely nothing like the actual ceratopsian taxonomy based on fossil evidence and the fact that the taxonomy is the direct result of scientists comparing ceratopsian fossils with each other along with other dinosaur fossils to determine how are dinosaurs related to each other through physical evidence found in the fossil record that creationists deliberately choose to absolutely deny outright out of ignorance? And how do they explain the fact that there are much more primitive basal ceratopsians that lived before Protoceratops such as Yinlong that have been found to show the beginnings of the long line of ceratopsians?
Page 32: Protoceratops was a herbivore. This page fails to mention this in this maze game where a child can help a mother Protoceratops find food for her young.
Page 33-36: These following pages just show to the child how to build a model of a Protoceratops.
Page 37: Next it shows the child how to build an anatomically incorrect dinosaur out of a tangram puzzle.
Page 38: Next it shows an example of how creationists wrongly regard any mythical animal made up of only modern animal composites as a dinosaur to the point of distorting it only because of it being shaped like one. Never mind all the small details telling us it clearly isn't. This image is claimed to depict a Protoceratops, whom creationists claimed the ancients allegedly saw alive, carved on a stone door frame serving as an entrance to an Ancient Chinese Tomb found at Dangjiagou Village in Mizhi County dating to the Han Dynasty AD 250-220. It isn't.
This alleged dinosaur appears to have a long, thin, narrow, crest resembling a curvy horn of a bull or an antelope on its head. Protoceratops don't have such a crest. It has a wider frill with large openings called parietal fenestra on it to lighten the weight of the head. Does the alleged dinosaur have a jugal bone which is a pointed cheek bone growing on each side of the head? No. We now know that all dinosaurs including Protoceratops don't drag their tails. The actual tail of Protoceratops is much longer than the animal in the depiction and was hold up high to help balance the dinosaur's body. The animal appears to have a large bump on its face, which is a direct result of omitting an additional horn from its snout, a much smaller mouth, and legs that appear stumpy.
Folks what you are seeing here is Earl and Bonita Sellenburger's direct distortion of the mythical rhinoceros-unicorn, one of the numinous auspicious animals decorating the tombs of the Eastern Han aristocrats to serve as guardians of the dead to drive out evil spirits and tomb robbers who might disturb their eternal slumber, omitting everything from the small curvy horn to the additional horns on the shoulders that will give one the true impression that this animal is not at all a Protoceratops dinosaur.
From Chinese Unicorn site — By the late Eastern Han Dynasty, images of guardian rhinoceros-unicorns began to appear in tombs with single horns sprouting from their necks or shoulders. This confusion was heightened by the fact that written descriptions of the rhinoceros and the natural multiplicity of its horns survived. In the Shuo wen it simply says, “The animal si is like a wild ox,” while in the Erh Ya, China’s oldest lexicon which dates to the Han period, it says “The rhinoceros looks like a pig.” A later commentary on this sentence in the Erh Ya adds a little more information. "The shape looks like a buffalo with a pig’s head, a big stomach, short legs, a foot in three parts, black in colour, with three horns, one on the crown, one on the forehead, and one on the nose. The one on the nose can be eaten [as medicine.] It has a small and not elongated cone shape. The rhino likes to eat thorns. There is also a one-horned species." Such cryptic descriptions, when combined with the ancient Chinese concept of cumulative power, gave rise to endless possibilities for artistic variation. Because the power of the mythic unicornzhiresided in its horn, people must have come to the logical conclusion that the more horns there were, the greater the power. As a result, multiple horns were added to the necks and backs of images of mythic tomb guardian rhinoceros-unicorns in order to increase their power to root out evil and defend against corruption. This idea, of the cumulative power inherent in the multiplicity of the horns, was to have a profound effect on images of the rhinoceros-unicorn in the late Han and Six Dynasties periods.
Page 39: This is a joke! Ancient Chinese man pulling a mythical dragon-like dinosaur like a horse, a dog, or a cow.
This is a direct distortion of the Late Cretaceous sub-adult Pachycephalosaurus (formally called Stygimoloch) with six, not four, horns growing on its bonehead. When the Sellenburgers distort the plant-eating dinosaur whose fossils are found in exclusively in North America in reality, they put in a row of spikes on its back, just 4 horns on its bonehead, small spines covering much of its legs and flanks, hands that have four fingers with large pointed claws, and feet that resembles a theropod, and then have the nerve to ask,
"Are dragons and dinosaurs essentially the same animals?'
The answer is a resounding "No!" and the creationists know it! It is completely wrong for the two creationists to deliberately distort dinosaurs like the young Pachycephalosaurus by adding to them features no dinosaur has ever have and make them as if they are the dragons of legends while they are clearly not. They deliberately do this as part of their conspiracy to deceive gullible people especially children into believe all their lies.
Plus this totally hides the fact that the Ancient Chinese would never, ever treat the Chinese Dragon like that; they worship the Chinese Dragon as a god for it is known to be a symbol of good luck and good fortune, showering blessings on the righteous and sending vicious storms and droughts to punish the wicked.
According to the Wikipedia article about The Chinese Dragon, the dragon is described to have nine resemblances to various extant modern animals and much more.
The people paint the dragon's shape with a horse's head and a snake's tail. Further, there are expressions as 'three joints' and 'nine resemblances' (of the dragon), to wit: from head to shoulder, from shoulder to breast, from breast to tail. These are the joints; as to the nine resemblances, they are the following: his horns resemble those of a stag, his head that of a camel, his eyes those of a demon, his neck that of a snake, his belly that of a clam (shen, 蜃), his scales those of a carp, his claws those of an eagle, his soles those of a tiger, his ears those of a cow. Upon his head he has a thing like a broad eminence (a big lump), called [chimu] (尺木). If a dragon has no [chimu], he cannot ascend to the sky.
Apparently the part about the dragon having carp-like scales, stag horns, eagle claws, demon eyes, and a big lump on its head that allows it to fly is where the inspiration for this wrongful creationist-made image came from.
More rebuttals to the Sellenburger's idiocy next post….
