Interesting article for the creationists side, what do you guys think?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

There is the link, is this all bogus material what he is talking about or is there some truth maybe to it?

Bogus.

If someone else doesnt, later ill go over some of the things, they really like to write long articles dont they.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Generalities are the Creationists game.

Why do we NEVER find dinosaur bones along with ANY large mammals. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER EVER!

If man had lived with dinosaurs, if they were recent, why can't we find ANY bones used as a tool, jewelry, clothes, etc when we can find this evidence from many of the other animals ancient man hunted or lived with.

Man by nature collects trophies - why do all of these trophies seem to fit the notion that dinosaurs and man did not live together.

Dragon stories talk about fire breathing and flying large animals (and animals that had magical powers). How come we don't hear stories about fire breathing tigers or elephants? Did dinosaurs really breath fire? Do we now start to believe in other mythological animals and state that they lived together with man and were real? The similarities between dragon stories and dinosaurs pale in comparison to the differences (wings, often times no legs, head of a mammal, often with hair, etc.)

Creationists cannot explain the careful order of the fossil record that matches the mainstream view of when and where dinosaurs live. All you will get from them is generalities.

From the article:
"Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur. However, evolutionists would then have to explain why they made dogmatic statements that man and dinosaur never lived at the same time. I suspect they would say something to the effect that this dinosaur somehow survived because it was trapped in a remote area that has not changed for millions of years. You see, no matter what is found, or how embarrassing it is to evolutionists' ideas, they will always be able to concoct an 'answer' because evolution is a belief. It is not science—it is not fact!"

This is false. The reason that "evolutionists" do not say that dinosaurs and man lived together is because there is no credible evidence of it. If evidence found, they will need to adjust the theory to account for it, but it will do nothing to SUPPORT a young earth model, which has already been falsified.

"living fossils" do nothing to falsify or poke holes in evolutionary theory, in fact, in a way, it predicts them in the correct environment (alligators, coelecanth, etc.)

Until it gets down to "When did the dinosaurs live?" it is accurate. From there on out it is bogus.

Would you hunt a T-Rex?

Incredibly, I've heard YECs claim that a fully-grown T-Rex would make perfect game for early man. Plenty of meat, and all.

I'm going to get some popcorn and watch for now.

Originally Posted by MartinM

Would you hunt a T-Rex?

Incredibly, I've heard YECs claim that a fully-grown T-Rex would make perfect game for early man. Plenty of meat, and all.

No, but driving a heard of Maiasaura over a cliff can't be any more difficult and provides as much meat as mastodons or mammoths. Yet no pictures of Iguanodons in the European cave paintings. No ornaments of their bones or their bones found at neandertal and sapiens hunting and living sites. Why not? Why only mammal bones, and recent mammals at that?

Again, notto used the "if ... then" deductive logic.

IF humans and dinos lived together, THEN humans would have hunted them like large mammals and would have made art from the bones and representations of them on cave art -- like they did with mammals. So, since none of that has been found, despite looking thru enough of the possible data to be sure we couldn't miss it, it means that dinos and humans never lived together.

Some is accurate, some isn't.

This is correct.

Dinosaur bones had been described earlier (by Plot for example) but they had not been recongnized as reptile-like creatures. The Mantell part is, save for a legend or two, correct.

I object to dinosaurs being called reptiles but I am in the minority on this one.

They should have mentioned his repeated attempts to discredit Dr. Mantell and his dishonesty in his scientific work as well.

It actually means "fearfully great lizard" but that's unimportant.

There are a great many other features that distinguish dinosaurs from reptiles but an upright gait is one of the most obvious without closer inspection.

That's about right; sort of depends on what you define as the first dinosaur (there are several options to choose from).

This is all empty propaganda to make it seem like paleontologists started with the mindset that dinosaurs lived from ~225-65 million years and then worked from there. This is far from the case. The first dinosaurian paleontologists emerged some time before Origin of Species had even been published; meaning that a grand evolution conspiracy was not on their minds.

Wow, creation scientists have a lot of taxonomic work to do then. The fact is that there are several dinosaur-like creatures that appear in the middle Triassic and no one is sure which ones are dinosaurs and which ones aren't. The lines blurr greatly when you start dealing with Lagosuchids, Poposaurs, Drepanosaurs, etc. There are enough evolutionary dead-ends and avian mimics in the Triassic to make your head spin.

Also, let us not forget Dromeosaurs, Troodonts, and Avimimids; all of which blurr the lines between dinosaur and bird so much that taxonomy becomes very difficult.

The site's answer deals only with a YEC point of view. Quite simply, carnivores ate meat and herbivores ate plants (no flowering plants, just cycads, ferns, and mosses mostly).

Again they only deal witht he YEC point of view. The dinosaur fossils we find mostly probably died of mundane causes (disease and predators). Very few were probably killed in environmental disasters (although there are a few fossil sites that are the causes of sandstorms, floods, predator traps, etc.)

With the exception of birds, in all probability no. There are a few eccentric reports of dinosaurs in the Congo but these are doubtful to say the least.

Very doubtful. At the very most dinosaur bones gave credance to legends of dragons.

Most of these are very outdated models of dinosaur extinction.

The rest of the article is YEC oriented so I shall stop.

__________________

I have a large feeling that these creationists have never been to a museum where they have the dinosaurs all put together, and can actually see how large they are.

Dinosaurs did not co-exist with man, that is as preposterous as the notion of a flat-earth. But if they did, man would have played second fiddle to the dinosaurs.

Didn't you all see Jurassic park? Veloci-raptors could have taken out the human race single handedly. You have to remember, they didn't have giant electric fences back then or guns either... but hey, then again, the people that believe this live in fantasy land anyway. So yes, the humans would have been able to fly above the veloci-raptors and used their laser beam eyesight to behead them, and then use their 'tool-time man's kitchen' to flash-cook them in under 30 seconds....

I can't even debate seriously about the notion that dinosaurs co-existed with man... It boggles my mind that people actually believe something like that.

__________________
It's just another day.... the shame is gone.
It's hard to believe... that I've let it go away.

It's just a melody.... it bleeds in me.
It's hard to believe... that I've let it go.

What evidence do we have that dinasour bones are millions of years old? Creationists say that there is now, scientists only say they are old because they would have to be old in order to go along with evolution. Is this true? Any good sources I can check out for this material?