Did Dinosaurs live with man?

There are no what ifs about it, Coy Boy. The evidence is loud and clear and it is all in your face that you quackademic lot are a bunch of arrogant presumptuous baboons who got no clue even about who your baboonish wives associated with last week yet are claiming to be able to enlighten the public on who the dinosaurs kept company with and who they kept company without. As the cat said you are a total waste of the space occupied. The bible pushers or Ancient Alien folks are at least trying to give some explanations to the loads of anomalies and stuff. You lot just follow the most boring party line imaginable regardless of anything.

No, Coy Boy, the only evidence you lot follow is that leading along the party line. The rest you run away from or suppress if others follow it. You danced around the cocaine and tobacco the Egyptians loved and the rest of it.
Now eat that: Welcome xpeditionsmagazine.com - Hostmonster.com

Blah, blah, blah. More brazen bluffing from the shy girl. All the finds are either destroyed or are in Smithsonian lofts under lock and key. The cocaine and tobacco in Egyptian bellies are well tested and documented so transoceanic connection between Meso-America and the rest well before Columbus is as certain as that you lot are phonies selling snake-oil to the feline and the public. There is a Japanese tribe in Mexico and there are old Hebrew inscriptions there and so on. All that is exactly what is exhibited by the Acambaro figurines representing all kinds of simian races that should have been unknown to the locals there according to your party-line.

Why not, Old Timer? If your hypothesis is that the moon is made of cheese, the feline has no problem with that. Just explain how that is possible and he'll consider your suggestions.
The simians being older than the official quackademic line suggests they are is based on the observation that no quack has a clue what the oldest ruins and standing artefacts were for nor by what means they had been erected in the first place.

The clearest evidence is, Dogmameat, that nobody ain't got no remotest clue about such matters, least of all the quackademicians with their official version of history simian and universal. All the quackish lot are interested in and obsessed about is proving the bible-pushers wrong. How silly is that? That fanatical lot are fixated on and chained to the bible far more than the bible pushers themselves. Total waste of space. The bible pushers are at least some use for picking holes and exposing contradictions in the idiotic doctrines proposed by the university snake-oil merchants. Could the quacks do that job themselves or they will forever need a nanny?

Lovely to hear the sneaky little Tanya raising her tiny voice. Got a hypothesis about history of the feline's education, Tanya? Very good, very good. Keep on working on the thesis. The cat was losing hope to ever hear anything from that cheer-leader of the moggy's posts dislikers.

Vatican, you, Coy Boy and shy Tanya are deluded. Your bigbanger creationist proposals are nothing like any pretty ex. Who would want to slit the throat of such ugly nonsense? Not the feline. All your ludicrous quackademic doctrines will die an ugly natural death collapsing from accumulating decrepitude. Deal with that.

Who are we, Dogmameat? Speak for yourself. What knowledge, silly, do you possess on behalf of all simians, you pretentious midget? The issue of the thread here is whether the simians and dragons have been physically contemporary or not. Your dogma says an emphatic no to that yet there is an overwhelming doubt about your dogma. Understand? There is not anything impossible as such in the contrary proposition. On the other hand, there are physical impossibilities involved in the very foundations of your dogma. Like getting something from nothing every step of the theoretical way and so on. Does the feline need to rub your nose harder in the foundational tenets of your stupid bigbangism and your silly neo-darwinism so that this should penetrate your creationist skull?

There is a very good evidence that snakes, pigs and monkeys are as mythical as dragons, Coy Boy. They are all part of the Chinese calendar. The calendar is based on pure fantasy therefore no such mythological creatures exist or ever existed.

Irrelevant again, Vatican. You again try to smuggle your religion for a free ride at the expense of the technology that has nothing to do with your faith. Enlighten the public curing of which disease exactly depends on the moronic concept of expanding universe you have to profess a firm belief in lest your jeopardise your quackademic career?

That would mean that the Chinese mixed genres, Beanie. That is, mixed animal husbandry and palaeontology like Sagan and Adrienne Mayor claim they did and were much better at both than Coy Boy and his buddies. The Chinese point to what Coy Boy calls dinosaur fossils calling all that dragon bones. It might be though that Coy Boy just got all his chronology totally skewed from his buddies while the Chinese were happily riding domesticated dragons and stuff. You never know. The feline would not bet on Coy Boy guessing anything right, you know.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

La-la-la, look at that learned Inadequate. He is such a rare erudite. So certain of his sixty-five million years gap chronology. But you know what? 65 million years is a long, long distance. It might be that from that distance not a single discernible trace is left but all is completely recycled by mother nature.

You prevaricate, Dogmameat. The Cheshire is not impressed. Dinosaur is just a new-fangled name for the kind known as dragons since time immemorial to all simians of reason and learning. Birds are birds and dragons are dragons again. Herodotus and others describe how a smaller type of flying dragon is hunted by a kind of bird - the ibis. He does not say their fight is a fight of two types of dinosaur. Crocodiles might be an extant sub kind of dragon but the birds are not dragons at all other than inside of the framework of your religion. Understand? If not educate yourself.

And what is the point of inventing new names for old stuff like dinosaur for dragon? To patronise the ancient simians, to vainly declare them stupid, to feel important at their expense, to feel sure the modern monkey is making a great progress in understanding and so on. Progress, my foot. Hilarious.

What do you mean by the cat's denying you know anything about anything at all? You mean anything past? Well, there are serious doubts about all your certainties even about relatively recent past. Your quackademic ilk asserts that very recent war propaganda myths are the gospel truth and you do it with the brazen mug and lip. And you have the gall to insinuate your account of dragons is to be taken at face value too? Keep your chutzpah in check, Vatican.