Did Dinosaurs live with man?

What are the necessary conditions?
And why aren't humans found in the lower strata?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There's as much substance to that as there is to your assertions about vegetarianism before the Flood.

quote:

---

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

---

Adam: "What is meat?"
God: "Y'know...it's dead animals that are eaten."
Adam: "Eh? We don't eat dead animals!"
God: "Well, if you did you would call it 'meat'."
Adam: "So...you meant 'food' not 'meat' - like it says in other translations."
God: "Yeah - I guess so. My mistake."

Except that we know for a fact that humans ate meat before the time when the Biblical Flood was supposed to have happened.And we know for a fact that animals were eating meat millions and millions and millions of years before there was an Adam.

I don't think you're getting it. Let's try a little role reversal.Take a look at these layers of paint: My new position, now, is that all of those paints were mixed together and landed onto the surface in one big pour. Then they settled out into their different colors and formed the layers that you see.Your new position, now, is that each layer was laid down individually over a period of time. (Surely you can agree that's true, no?)How would you argue against my position and for yours? How would you explain that they were not put down together all at once?

If that was true, then we would have fossilized human bones along side the fossilized dino ones. But we don't, because that never happened. Whoa whoa whoa.... You don't get to just say "that's dumb" and then Gish Gallop over to attacking the opposition.We've got a scenario where humans and dinos lived around the same places at the same time. Then a big flood comes in. Now, you're saying that all the dinos got buried real deep but not a single human did. How would the waters or sediments or whatever, distiguish between a dino and human and know to bury one and not the other? Well, so much for Sola Scriptura. I knew you didn't really follow that one, rather you only claim to when its convenient.But I don't have a problem with them cohabiting, per se. You're the one who was saying they didn't live very near to each other.

Thanks for admitting that. Did all these other species have the same hydrodynamic properties as nautiloids? Because large shells survive decay better than, for example, fish. Although somehow this process forgot to hydraulically sort the actual sediments. Laws of nature can be kind of absent-minded like that. However, it did remember its main task, which was to arrange the fauna in the sediment in such a way as to deceive evolutionists.

quote:

---

Animal sacrifice was done before the Flood but Genesis 9:3 implies that meat was not eaten until after.

---

And the use of animal sacrifice - which specifically includes cooking the meat - implies that meat was eaten then (indeed, the raising of sheep tends to imply it, too). Genesis 9:3 records the giving of permission but that doesn't necessarily imply that there was no earlier permission - for instance eating the meat left over from the sacrifice might be allowed even if eating meat at other times was forbidden.As I said, it's ambiguous and all the arguments on both sides are based on implications which are not terribly strong. And that's for the humans! For animals there is no explicit grant of permission to eat meat.

quote:

---

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.

---

And Gods curse in Genesis 3:17-19 says that it will be hard work growing sufficient food. I really think that an explicit statement takes precedence over speculation.

quote:

---

OK, if there is uncontrovertible fossil evidence of predation then apparently animals ate meat before the Flood. I'll accept that.

---

That really wasn't the point I wanted to bring up. My intent was to point out - yet again - that there is a distinction between the Bible and imaginative scenarios derived from it. Please try to avoid confusing them in the future.Edited by PaulK, : Corrected weird iPad spelling "correction:

Too many edits loses it's touch. I am a Poor writer.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : thought this was the dragon thread, which would have made the OP Alfred Maddenstein.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Serious serious violatiojn of rule against personal comments.

So jump on your pet dinosaur and cry to Percy. better yet, cry to moose since he is so sympathetic to the dumb shit you creationists say. I don't really give a fuck. This is free for all and you are seriously entertaining the notion that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.

"Seriously entertaining?"I have no doubt whatever that they lived at the same time.

And no evidence whatever as well. None.

Even more. As usual, also totally refuted by all the evidence.

Not a single human, or rhino, or elephant, or lion, etc.