It's not noted anywhere.
http://c.fastcompany.net/multisite_...e/2012/09/1670898-inline-inline-evo-large.jpg
You need a non cropped version of the image.
It's usually stated as starting at 542 million years ago. Go back to the website you grabbed it from and get the original.
Notice how that chart goes out of its way to label dinosaurs "extinct" before man showed up?
Despite what the Bible says?
You think that's in there just for show?
I think you are misinterpreting. "Dinosaurs died 65 million years ago" is a common bit of knowledge that is rarely associated or connected with religion. (Obviously anyone who thinks there's only 6 to 10 thousand years of history will think it's wrong, but I don't think this is anything like an attack on creationists.)Notice how that chart goes out of its way to label dinosaurs "extinct" before man showed up?
Despite what the Bible says?
You think that's in there just for show?
Notice how that chart goes out of its way to label dinosaurs "extinct" before man showed up?
Despite what the Bible says?
You think that's in there just for show?
Yes.Uhhhh.....you think humans lived during the same time as dinosaurs..?
Yes.
According to evolution, the first dinosaurs appeared 231.4 million years ago.There is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places.
According to evolution, the first dinosaurs appeared 231.4 million years ago.
If you do the math and divide 231.4 million by 6 thousand, you get 38,567.
That means that for every year we say the Bible has been in existence, deep timers say it has been in existence 38,567 years.
Since evolution says there was a 65-million year gap between the last dinosaur and the first man, that equates to 1685.4 years in "short time."
Which puts the last dinosaur in existence around AD 330.
(Assuming my math is correct.)
Navels are not observed in animals that come from eggs. If you take the Bible literally that animal clearly had to be a mammal, not a dinosaur.Yes.
Ever read the book of Job?
And, by the way, notice here ...
Job 40:16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
How can a "terrible lizard" have a navel?
Here's an old thread I started years ago:
Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:
I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.
- fowled bat
- behemoth
- leviathan
- four-legged grasshopper
- satyr
- unicorn
- dragon
- straw-eating lions
SOURCE
When is your math ever correct when you are dealing with evolution?According to evolution, the first dinosaurs appeared 231.4 million years ago.
If you do the math and divide 231.4 million by 6 thousand, you get 38,567.
That means that for every year we say the Bible has been in existence, deep timers say it has been in existence 38,567 years.
Since evolution says there was a 65-million year gap between the last dinosaur and the first man, that equates to 1685.4 years in "short time."
Which puts the last dinosaur in existence around AD 330.
(Assuming my math is correct.)
You're right, my mistake. The Cambrian explosion is off the original graph. This one is clearer....
It's the rate of extinction that is the concern, and the cause, ie. Human activity is destroying the food chain.One thing stroke me when seeing this graph.
There are much much more extinct species than the current existing species. If so, why are we so nervous about endangered species today? I don't see a single reason to spend any resources on the preservation of those species. It is even possible that we should kill off more current species to make room for future species.
Because once they are gone that little bit on uniqueness is gone from the world. From a pragmatic perspective each species might have something useful for mankind.One thing stroke me when seeing this graph.
There are much much more extinct species than the current existing species. If so, why are we so nervous about endangered species today? I don't see a single reason to spend any resources on the preservation of those species. It is even possible that we should kill off more current species to make room for future species.
It's the rate of extinction that is the concern, and the cause, ie. Human activity is destroying the food chain.
Here's an interesting article on the subjectWhy is the rate a concern? We are not going to kill all animals. What we do not kill will continue to evolve. What is wrong with that?
Because once they are gone that little bit on uniqueness is gone from the world. From a pragmatic perspective each species might have something useful for mankind.
More people have died then are alive today, we don't legalise spree killing because "Well, more people are always being born."
Here's an interesting article on the subject
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
Humanity is destroying the earth's ecosystem faster than life can hope to adapt.