Did Dinosaurs live with man?

A newspaper report that's over 100 years old? And the artifacts are missing? (Or more likely never existed!)And this is what you're relying on? This is the best you've got?You're joking! Don't you have any real evidence?

Get back to us when you have evidence.Until then, perhaps you could peddle your nonsense elsewhere; somebody, somewhere might be silly enough to take it seriously. Its a big interweb.

And this rant is supposed to convince us that dinosaurs lived with man, or that dragons existed into recent times?You've become nothing but a troll. And not a very good one at that.

I can see that you are trying to be a wit using personal attacks instead of evidence. Keep it up! You're half-way there! Modern humans and dragons have not been physically contemporary. In all these posts you have provided no evidence to the contrary. You can't even provide a source for bones, which should be all over the place. I've helped excavate both mammoth and mastodon bones, and tens of thousands of smaller bones, but have never in >40 years of digging found dragon bones. Neither has anyone else. If you have evidence to the contrary, why don't you present it? We understand the evidence, which says there is no such thing as a dragon, but we'll leave dogma to you and the rest of the true-believers. There is no place for dogma in science. You, on the other hand, appear to be full of it. Gibberish. Creationist gibberish. (But then that's a redundancy.)

In order to claim that, there are a number of problems you must first explain.Just one of these is the dating. Do you have any evidence that scientific dating is off by a factor of some 5,000X?I don't want to see hand-waving, a restatement of your beliefs, or any of that. I want you to produce real evidence that all dating methods are wrong.

If the bible says that dinosaurs coexisted with man it is wrong.That's pretty much all there is to it.

The creationists have the Queen beat!The contortions they have to go through to believe that dinosaurs lived with man are funny to watch. They have to deny the accuracy of all dating methods, ignore much of the law of superposition, and turn the scientific method upside-down. They also have to ignore huge amounts of data which show they are wrong.

Neither is a separation of 65+ million years.

Others have covered various aspects of this question quite well. Here, I'd like to summarize the dating problem:If one is to argue a young earth, with dinosaurs and man cavorting about together from ca. 6,000 years ago until the flood, there are some things which must be established. These include:

--All of the methods science uses to date the past are incorrect.

​

--Human and dinosaur fossils (or, more accurately, bones) are found in the same strata.

​

--The sequences showing gradual and very time-consuming development of strata, and the development and extinction of many genera and species, took place in a very short time.

What the evidence shows:

--There are no human fossils, bones, or artifacts found in association with dinosaurs. Period.

​

--Creationists have not been able to produce any evidence that all dating methods are incorrect, nor can they explain why so many different dating methods, using vastly different materials and techniques, agree with one another. They haven't even managed to produce evidence that any single dating method used to establish either an old earth or the ages of various layers is incorrect.

​

--The difference in ages between dinosaur fossils and human bones/fossils is on the close order of 65 million years, not less than 2,000 years. Creationists have presented no evidence to the contrary.

​

--Regarding the claim that genera and species developed in a very short time between 6,000 years ago and the flood, this would require macro-evolution thousands of times faster than that observed by scientists--a strange claim for those who deny macro-evolution ever happened! The observed development and extinction of genera and species is compatible with an old earth, but not a young earth.

​

--Finally, the evidence shows that creationists are using apologetics in an effort to support their religious beliefs, rather than science to see what the evidence actually shows. When confronted by evidence, they automatically deny or ignore anything that fails to support their beliefs.

From all of this, creationists are clearly not doing science, and in fact, have no business even discussing science. They simply aren't qualified.

The flood view is wrong, start to finish. It is based on old tribal myths, not evidence. It is contradicted by the evidence.This is shown by various forms of dating as well as stratigraphy.The layers you are claiming are all contemporaneous are clearly spread out over millions of years based on the evolution and extinction of hundreds or thousands of genera and species, as well as the depositional history which can be read from the layers.You can dispute this all you want, but that doesn't make it so.(See signature.)

I suspect that Faith has given up -- on us.

Hey! We agree on something!