Did Dinosaurs live with man?

Still no bones, eh?And I see you're trying to be a wit. Keep posting gibberish, you're halfway there!

"The cat" is not saying anything either literate or of any use in discussing the topic, which is "Did Dinosaurs live with man?"You claimed that there were dragons cavorting all over the place, playing around with people, but when challenged "Where are the bones?" you started talking about the big bang and other off-topic subjects.You have steadfastly avoided answering the question, so I'll help you see it more clearly:WHERE ARE THE BONES?So far you have shown you have nothing but apologetics, rhetoric, and obfuscation.Try coming up with some evidence for a change, like where are all of the dragon bones.Continuing to ignore this question, and responding with grade 3 gibberish, you're just making a fool of yourself.(Actually all the rest of us know there really aren't, and never has been, any dragons, hence there are no dragon bones, but you don't seem to have realized that yet.)

Any evidence of that? Can you point to particular bones and show where the classifications are incorrect? Or that some of those bones might belong to as specialized a creature as a dragon?Remember, for a large critter to fly requires very distinct bone structure and morphology. Look at chicken bones the next time you dine. Pay particular attention to the keeled sternum (breastbone). We are talking about bones, not fossils. Chronology doesn't apply. Either you have bones or you do not. So far, you do not. Dragon of the gaps? You are getting sillier and sillier! Finally! Something we can all agree on!

In the first paragraph of that useless article you cited we find the claim: This is a standard creationist claim resulting from sloppy research.This claim usually takes the form:

Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea Tar Pits (near Los Angeles), supposedly 100,000 to 1000,000 years old, gave a date of 28,000 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 10, 1968)

The citation above is more screwed up than is normal even for creationists! The Smilodon bones were not dated by Willard (not Walter) Libby at Chicago, but rather by Rainer Berger (at UCLA), with Libby as a co-author on the paper. The radiocarbon dates all bear the UCLA prefix! This would have been a clue if the creationists had even read the Radiocarbon article they cited. But they didn't bother to read it! They just copied (incorrectly) some nonsense from another creationist website.An analysis of the dating errors appears here: A Look at Creation Science Part IIIIn brief, creationists got it somehow into their silly heads that the dates for should be "100,000 to 1000,000 years old" so when the UCLA laboratory dated them at 12,650-28,000 years they said, "Aha! We've got them this time!" And they've been crowing about it ever since. Unfortunately, they have been wrong from the start.

​

Research of this quality, which is typical, has undermined everything the creationists claim about radiocarbon dating.

​

(I can provide more examples if you want. Be warned: you won't like them!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

​

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

​

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

​

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

You accuse us of this after the useless drivel you inflict upon us?What a joke!You've been "dancing around the bush and issue" ever since you were challenged to provide evidence of dragons. All you needed to do was provide evidence, but you don't have any.The evidence is against you -- the earth is old, and dinosaurs did not live with man. They missed by some 65 million years.And dragons never existed.You have any evidence to the contrary, now's the time to present it and forget the useless drivel you usually post.

I follow the evidence, and that's what the evidence says. You, on the other hand, are apparently following old myths that have long since been shown to be inaccurate. Don't much care what any of those say. I'll follow the evidence instead. Gibberish not worthy of a response. Any references to all of that? Or is that just something you made up or misinterpreted, same as usual?

I googled "Vandana Prasad and dragon coprolites" and found links to Free Republic and articles by Brian Thomas of the Dishonesty Institute. I would not consider either a source for reliable science.The articles by Vandana Prasad deal with dinosaur diet and make no mention of dragons.Do you have specific links to some reliable articles or are you engaging in wishful thinking and creation "science" once again?

Brian Thomas has a well-earned reputation for posting creation "science" in the guise of real science. He doesn't let evidence interfere with his religious beliefs. This is typical for the Dishonesty Institute. They are well-known for pushing creation "science" and ID in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They are nothing more than a propaganda mill. Drivel. The papers I saw from Prasad did not mention dragons at all. They dealt with dinosaurs. Looks like you are out there on a limb all by yourself, as the papers you cite as support do not actually support your position. I don't see any of that in the papers I read. Perhaps you can post a link to the exact paper you are referring to? Otherwise, what I read from your cited author does not say what you claim it said. Specifically, he never mentioned dragons in the articles I read.You are just making up things, as usual? I don't think I will learn much from Michael Cremo.Do you have any real science to cite?I'll leave to you the magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.If you have any real science to support your view that dinosaurs = dragons and that one or both co-existed with modern humans, let's see it.Bones would be nice, but you've had 100+ posts to provide evidence of dragon bones and have yet to come up with any.I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.As suggested above, maybe you should go two falls out of three with David Mabus and have the winner get back to us.

You're citing the Acmbaro figures as evidence????!!You seem eager to cite anything that offers the flimsiest support for your position, while ignoring the massive amount of evidence that disproves your position.And you claim to be doing science?What a joke!But then, that's creation "science" in a nutshell. (Nut shell! I like that!)

They aren't genuine, so don't overly concern yourself. They are typical of the arguments made by creationists, and yourself.You are grasping at any hint of support for your claims, while disregarding the massive amounts of evidence that disprove your claims.That's not science.Well, maybe creation "science."More like religious apologetics: "We'll believe anything that supports our position and deny anything that doesn't."Get a grip!

Are you drunk or doped up or what?Not a word of the nonsense you just posted refutes any piece of evidence that science has produced, and that people have posted for you in this thread.If all you have is confused nonsensical claims, nobody is going to take you seriously. But that seems to be all you have, and in fact people don't take you seriously.If you want to advocate your position, why don't you try evidence instead of nonsense?(Oh, right. You don't have any.)

Where are your dragons?Here's one now! Catch it quick before it gets away!Like all the other ones have, eh?(Dragons existing with man? What a joke!)

The title of the thread is " Did Dinosaurs live with man?"Belief has nothing to do with it. What does the evidence say? The evidence shows: 1) There is no such thing as a dragon. 2) Dinosaurs became extinct some 65 million years ago. 3) The reason(s) for the extinction are still being explored, although there are some strong hypotheses. 4) There is no evidence of true dinosaurs in the recent past (birds etc. don't count). Yes, we understand, but it is clear you have been taken in by some religious claptrap that causes you to ignore the massive amount of evidence that shows that you are wrong.

Your "what ifs" are not evidence! All the "what ifs" you can make up don't negate a single piece of scientific evidence. In these three cases the evidence shows you and your "what ifs" are wrong.To disprove scientific evidence or theory takes real evidence. It can be done, but apparently not by you, as all you can come up with are "what ifs."But then I guess if you had evidence you would have presented it by now, eh?

You have it backwards, as usual.We follow the evidence because it is evidence, while creationists such as yourself seem to ignore the evidence no matter how compelling.The rest of your post is the usual gibberish mixed with personal attacks. You must feel somehow that gibberish and personal attacks make your claims more believable to the other posters and lurkers here.Have you ever considered that they just make you seem foolish, and cast considerable doubt on everything you say?