Did Dinosaurs live with man?

Okay, so the scientific approach has yielded all sorts of wonderful advancements for mankind.The only thing your's has done is try to destroy the credibility of our knowledge.But the results are what matters, and Science won a long time ago.

You're like the psycho ex-boyfriend with a knife to his ex's throat:"If I can't be right, then nobody can!"**slit**

No, we're not. But that's bullshit. You *do* want to slit its throat. Since you can't refute it all you can do is doubt it. And that's what you do: you write that nobody knows anything about this when in fact we do. You can't deal with the facts so you resort to obscurity. Given the track record of how great it has been working, you know; curing diseases, putting the man on the moon, and allowing us to communicate in this way, the odds of it collapsing are extremely low.

The topic is "Did Dinosaurs live with man?".You say that dinosaurs might have, and that they could have spawned the legends of dragons.We point out that there are not dinosaur bones, as opposed to fossilized material, so they can't be contemporary with man.Your response is to deny that we know anything about it at all and that anything is possible.Well whoop de-fucking-doo!Just face the facts, CrazyJew. Science won the debate decades ago. Denying reality and thinking wishfully only make you a fool.

I didn't say that. You saw something that wasn't there. How crazy of a Jew are you? Oh!.. wait, that might explain why you think there's dragons. Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. We have a very simple fact here: Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. Now, you are unable to refute that fact by adding additional knowledge. So, instead you try to combat it by discrediting the knowledge that we do have: "You don't know that they're not dragons".You're not actually bringing anything to the table, all you're doing is pretending that we haven't brought anything either. Its pathetic, really.And since you're doing such a disservice to everyone, you have to hide what you're doing behind obscure language and prose.No doubt, in your arrogance, you think that you're clever. Just know that we all think that you're an idiot and a troll.

Its on the order of a couple thousand kilograms per cubic meter. You can thank science for that fact. Its a fact that dinosaurs did not live with man. Do you want a deduction, or something?1) If dinosaurs lived with man, then we would have unfossilized dinosaur bones.
2) We do not have unfossilized dinosaur bones.
∴
C) Dinosaurs did not live with man.Now, we know you're unable to accept this fact. So, instead of bringing something to the table, all you can do is try to discredit our knowledge: But, the fact remains that this method of science works and provides results. It cures diseases, put a man on the moon, and has allowed us to communicate this way.So it doesn't even matter at all if it "could" all be wrong. Its working great! You should be thankful.

[qs]I already answered you on the Do Creationists try to find fossils thread referring to my earlier post where I linked a couple articles:The article on petrification clearly describes bodies of humans and a cat that had been mineralized throughout, and there is one quote on [URL=http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/fossilboot.html]the other page[/URL=] by an Alfred Romer writing in Natural History in 1959 saying that it only takes five to ten years to completely replace chicken bones and wood with minerals. Complete replacement with minerals IS fossilization. At least those references ought to demonstrate the point.Dinosaurs might take longer to fossilize but a few hundred years ought to be more than enough, and we have some 4300 years since the Flood for the job anyway.The point was that there are not any dinosaur bones that are not fossilized. If they existed when humans did, then we would have at least one bone from a dinosaur that didn't get fossilized. But we don't.Its impossible for The Flood to have fossilized just some of the bones from animals that all existed at the same place at the same time. If humans and dinosaurs were together, then we'd have human bones fossilized with dinosaur bones, and we'd have unfossilized dinosaur bones with the unfossilized human bones. But we don't see any of that anywhere at all.All the dinosaur bones are fossilized and the human ones are not. Therefore, they couldn't have been together at the same place and the same time. Even you don't believe that. You just have to say that to save face.

It is sooo ridiculous. Its just utter stupidity!

Dinosaurs were everywhere and humans were everywhere. If they both existed at the same time, then they had to be in the same places. How could it be otherwise? I apologize for assuming that creationists had some basic logical thinking skills. I won't make that mistake with you again.But anyways, have you not seen the pictures of the Creationist Museum? Take a look at this one: Apparently they think kids had pet dinosaurs. Well geez, that's not even true. The conditions that it goes through are what determines if it fossilizes or not. Sure, that can depend on how it was buried, but the conditions can change after it was buried. No, that's just something you made up in a post hoc rationalization of your preconceived Flud scenario. Its not something based on evidence.But still, if the dinos and humans were around each other, then we'd have some humans that got buried rapidly as well, and we'd see their fossilized bones along side the dino ones. But we've never ever found even one example of that... and that's because it never happened.

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.

Then you don't know what doubt is.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I had no idea, so I did some Googlin'... apparently it is:

And obviously, God created these guys: So they'd have adequate defense against the plants.

Heh, that reminds me of this: