Did Dinosaurs live with man?

I already answered you on the Do Creationists try to find fossils thread referring to my earlier post where I linked a couple articles:The article on petrification clearly describes bodies of humans and a cat that had been mineralized throughout, and there is one quote on [URL=http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossilboot.html]the other page[/URL=] by an Alfred Romer writing in Natural History in 1959 saying that it only takes five to ten years to completely replace chicken bones and wood with minerals. Complete replacement with minerals IS fossilization. At least those references ought to demonstrate the point.Dinosaurs might take longer to fossilize but a few hundred years ought to be more than enough, and we have some 4300 years since the Flood for the job anyway.There is no doubt that dinosaurs and people shared this planet before the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Remove the line of "=".

No I don't have the evidence you want though I think some creationistsw do, I just can never keep it all in mind. But I do have the Bible which is God's word, which says you're wrong. That really ought to suffice.

Who said they were in "the same place?" Inhabiting the same planet at the same time doesn't mean they hung out together. The bizarre stuff that gets imputed to creationists is really the straw man nonsense in the minds of the evolutionists.Fossilization has to do with how the creature was buried more than anything else. If it got buried rapidly and deep then it would be likely to fossilize, shallow burial wouldn't accomplish that.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sharing a continent is not necessarily hanging out together.

Creationists don't see any of the different animals as "apparently older," that's an evolutionist error. But those that got buried deeper in the stack of wet sediments had a better chance of getting fossilized than those at the top of the stack, most of which got washed away anyway. Those creatures would have been exposed to the elements and rotted away rather than being preserved. Nothing ridiculous about that idea.Funny how you guys go on and on about what you imagine to be creationist errors and never address the glaring stupidity of evolutionist interpretations of the strata, their amazingly knife-edge close interfaces with each other and their flat-topped horizontality as seen for instance in the Grand Canyon, plus of course their being completely separated discrete sediments. Attributing such a formation to long ages is ludicrous but you all just gloss it over or apply your weird made up Rube Goldbergish explanations.

What makes you so sure of that? If they all got buried at a certain depth, which you all agree they did, then why would any bone escape that burial? And if it did, why wouldn't it have rotted away by now anyway, which the human bodies no doubt did. Because it's a dumb idea.But what's even dumber is the fact that the strata do for some reason display peculiar collections of bones of particular animals, that is, one particular animal or a few, will dominate in a given layer. How does that make sense according to the theory of long ages? Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era? In other words, there ought to be a lot more mixing on YOUR theory than there in fact is. Austin's nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon has some other marine life in it but it's full of nautiloids, which dominate, and no other largish sea creature. How could that have happened according to your illustrious theory? Like it or not the only explanation for the sorting we see has to be some kind of mechanical/hydraulic principle. Bad bad form to make such personal remarks. Violation of forum rules too.One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood.

Maybe he ate tree trunks, who knows.

They didn't necessarily live near each other, so what? They also weren't meat eaters, so what?

Good grief, the first point I made more than once was that they DIDN'T live near each other. There is no reason to think they did. Then I pointed out that according to the Bible they weren't meat eaters ANYWAY. What IS your problem? Both are true, and both support the argument that they lived at the same time in the same world.

It doesn't say so directly, it's an inference from other facts.At the original Creation, men and animals ate only plants: In Genesis 3:19 and 21, God clothes Adam and Eve in animal skins, the first deaths recorded in the Bible. But they were not eating meat at that time.In Genesis 9:3 God tells Noah that now they are to eat meat. The usual idea about this is that the environment had changed drastically after the Flood, the land was far less fertile and there was much less, and probably less nutritious, plant food.It is from this that some extrapolate that animals also began to eat meat at the same time. They had no need to eat meat until after the Flood for the same reason people had no need to.There are those who think animals began to eat meat before the Flood as a result of the Fall but there is no evidence for that. If they did then T Rex would have evolved for that purpose before the Flood. But again there is no evidence for that and I think the post-Flood explanation makes more sense because the world no longer produced as much plant food as before.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I'm responding to different objections as they come up. So what. I'm not REVERSING anything, I'm bringing up different aspects of the situation.But if ancient human bones are found where dinosaur bones are also found, fine, that takes care of that argument. They DID live close together then.It is my impression that the strata are TYPICALLY populated by groups of the same kind of creature, and that you don't get a full collection of the same kinds of creatures that inhabit the lower strata, which you should since anything that continues to live in the present should be just as abundant in later time frames as earlier. There should be a continuous record. Why should dinosaurs dominate their particular strata to the exclusion of creatures that dominated earlier strata in the same area?Again it is my impression that this is the case. Do you have evidence that I'm wrong about this?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Animal sacrifice was done before the Flood but Genesis 9:3 implies that meat was not eaten until after.The Bible doesn't SAY the earth was less fertile after the Flood but there's plenty of reason to think it's implied. The fact that plants were given to all animals and people at Creation, plus the description of Eden as a garden, plus the description of mists watering the planet, all add up to a picture of a lush environment that obviously no longer exists planet-wide, and probably in a small way only in isolated jungle areas. The Flood wiped out most animal and human life, and there's no reason to think it left much more sea life or plant life either. The huge abundance of fossils demonstrates unimaginably dense life of all kinds before the Flood.OK, if there is uncontrovertible fossil evidence of predation then apparently animals ate meat before the Flood. I'll accept that.

Yes, I FINALLY reversed my argument. Sheesh.I still have the same answer to the fossilized dinosaur versus unfossilized human bones. The upper strata did not have the conditions necessary to fossilization as the lower strata did. Much of it simply washed away when the Flood waters drained. It wasn't compacted as the lower strata were and it would have dried out sooner if it wasn't washed away. Decay was the more likely effect wherever anything remained.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Ah, you're all SO cute.

Serious serious violatiojn of rule against personal comments.