Did Dinosaurs live with man?

quote:

---

Because it's a dumb idea.

---

What's dumb about it ?

quote:

---

But what's even dumber is the fact that the strata do for some reason display peculiar collections of bones of particular animals, that is, one particular animal or a few, will dominate in a given layer.

---

What makes you think that that is true ? Have you actually done research that leads you to conclude that ?
(I will point out that the most productive site I visited in childhood had numerous fragments of sea urchin shells and spines, crinoids, brachiopods, assorted bivalves and gastropods all in one small area)

quote:

---

How does that make sense according to the theory of long ages? Why shouldn't every layer contain an array of all the animals supposedly living on the earth in that particular era?

---

No stratum is truly global, so each one will only contain a sampling of the creatures that lived locally - and that biased by other factors (soft-bodied creatures fossilise far more rarely than hard parts, for instance).

quote:

---

In other words, there ought to be a lot more mixing on YOUR theory than there in fact is.

---

And since your view suggests even MORE mixing - because you don't accept the temporal segregation - it's an even worse problem for you, to the extent that it's true.

quote:

---

Austin's nautiloid layer in the Grand Canyon has some other marine life in it but it's full of nautiloids, which dominate, and no other largish sea creature.

---

If this is true, isn't it a major problem for Austin's "mass kill" idea ? Surely anything causing a mass kill wouldn't just select out nautiloids and leave everything else untouched.

quote:

---

Like it or not the only explanation for the sorting we see has to be some kind of mechanical/hydraulic principle.

---

That's absolutely NOT what Austin claims about the nautiloids. Austin claims that they are the remains of a mass kill, preserved in situ.And you've provided no reason why we should even accept it as a possibility, let alone the only one.

quote:

---

One thing that needs to be taken into account here is that according to the Bible neither animals nor people were meat-eaters until after the Flood, so that there wouldn't have been the problems you all imagine with them cohabiting the same space before the Flood.

---

Can you actually support the claim that the Bible says that animals were vegetarian before the Flood ? Chapter and verse, please. And how do you explain the fossil evidence of predation ?

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.

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.

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: