Did Dinosaurs live with man?

Just imagine those Great Whites nibbling on celery sticks!

But you are the one saying that dinosaurs and people didn't live near each other.
Have you forgotten what you are arguing again?Can you guess who said the following quotes?

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Sharing a continent is not necessarily hanging out together.

---

You have to twist and turn sooo much to maintain your beliefs that you end up arguing against both sides of the argument, including you own.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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

So now they didn't live near each other?
I wish you would make up your mind.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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.

quote:

---

Then I pointed out that according to the Bible they weren't meat eaters ANYWAY. What IS your problem? Both are true

---

I asked before, and I'll ask again. Where in the Bible does it say that animals weren't carnivores before the Flood ? Chapter and verse, please.

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.

Apart from the fact that fossilised dinosaur bones are found in the same areas as human bones.Also, you say this:

quote:

---

Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era?

---

Well, the answer to your own question is: because Faith says they shouldn't - "they DIDN'T live near each other. There is no reason to think they did." My main problem is that you keep reversing what you are claiming, depending on what aspect of the flood you are trying to support.Make. Up. Your. Mind.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

But the Bible does not even say that much, does it?

quote:

---

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.

---

In other words it is NOT true the Bible says so. It's all based on extrapolating statements that apply only to humans. (In fact the Bible is ambiguous even regarding humans, It certainly has Abel killing and butchering sheep, and even the ban is based on the absence of a statement granting permission)

quote:

---

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.

---

There may be nothing in the Bible to say either way, but there's certainly fossil evidence of predation.

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.

Which is - ironically - followed by you reversing your stance on dinosaurs and humans living together: But, anyway, that puts us back to Catholic Scientist's earlier reply to you: ...which still stands as valid reasoning for dinosaurs and humans not existing at the same time.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

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.

You just can scarcely imagine the unbridled ferocity of a Jurassic Carrot. It took every tooth in an allosaur's head to subdue one of those wily orange devils. That's why some dinosaurs were so carnivorous-looking.Tyrannosaurs had to deal with Cretaceous Cauliflowers, which hunted from ambush. Even Tubal-cain's best bronze spears were hardly a match for them. They were likely even fiercer that Jurassic Carrots, but they rotted badly in Flud Water, so we don't have many fossils.

Ah, you're all SO cute.