Did Dinosaurs live with man?

Hi Scotty, True enough. Yet none of them are humans.I would love to hear your explanation for this. Why are there no fossil beds that combine human and dinosaur fossils?Mutate and Survive

Oh definitely. Without a doubt. Learned scholars tell us so. I'm just going off of your evidence; Well who could argue with that!? In message 1 you presented an astonishing wealth of evidence that dragons (or so-called "dinosaurs") existed alongside man for many years. They were evidently kept as beasts of burden. I for one was profoundly convinced by this seemingly irrefutable evidence. The truth was undeniable!Now you're trying to tell me that dinosaurs didn't live with man? That it just isn't a plausible idea? I have to say that I'm disappointed.C'mon Scotty, you were doing so well! If dinosaurs, sorry, dragons were part of everyday human life then surely we would see their fossils together. Dragon fossils with signs of human butchering perhaps. Or human bones with dragon bite-marks. Maybe even the remains of a dragon-drawn chariot! Surely you can show me something. I mean, I'm willing to be generous; I'm not asking to see them in the same rock. Just the same geological period would be a start.How about that? You show me some dragon bones and some human fossils within, say, 50 million years of each other?Anything?Mutate and Survive

But somehow you forgot to mention that when you first brought them up. Yeah, but he also had this to say;

quote:

---

Wise stands out among young-earth creationists not only for his impeccable education but for a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged 'human bones' in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these 'bones' would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving the lie to the canard that it is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J B S Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!"). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were "inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all." Unusually among the motley denizens of the 'big tent' of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.

---

Source; richarddawkins.net/articles/115 Nice photos of the excavation. A pity they didn't think to include any photos of the actual footprints. You mean the notorious fraudulent footprints? You mean the notorious fraudster Carl Bough? Really. Where is it now? Giants too? Wow. You're awesome. Please post here as often as possible. Mutate and Survive

Hi foreveryoung, Except that this isn't what he originally said. Take a look at the OP; He's not making an argument about dubious dating at all. He's just citing the stones (amongst other bits of tosh) and saying "Look! Models of dinosaurs! HUMANS AND DINOSAURS MUST HAVE LIVED TOGETHER!!!". Scotty was quite content to cite the stones as evidence without bothering until later to mention that they were a known fraud. No. He used them as evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. He did so in a completely straight-faced manner. Take another look; Nothing about dubious dating. That was just a smokescreen that Scotty conjured up later in the thread, presumably after he realised that the Ica stones are a hoax. He's just making excuses. It's deplorable, but sadly, not unprecedented. There is a certain class of creationist who will use any argument at all, even ones that they know full well are fake. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not to these guys, all that matters is its effectiveness as apologetics. I do not believe that you belong to this category of creationist. I think you are more honest than that. I would urge you not to defend such dishonest tactics, whether it's creationists using them or evolutionists.There is one thing that's confusing me though; you say you don't agree with Scotty, but the other day you said that you believed the Noahic Flood took place before the dinosaurs. Since that story involves humans, doesn't that mean that you should be agreeing with Scotty? For your model to be true, wouldn't humans and dinosaurs necessarily have co-existed?By the way, I would like to second everything that arachnophilia said about dating the stones.Mutate and Survive

Mutate and Survive