Summations Only

Would you like some examples of earlier civilizations that have artwork based on extinct skeletal remains?

But that is not your argument - that is simply your claim: humans and dinosaurs co-existed.Your argument is that images of dinosaurs proves that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.
This is clearly not true, as Dr. A's images show.Your argument has been invalidated.
Your claim is unsupported.{abe}
And here's a statue from around 1000AD: Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It was not even 1% conclusive: your point was shown to be invalid. How reliable is that web-page?
I suspect that ScienceVsEvolution.com have an axe to grind.For example: they think that C-14 carbon dating (which only dates items up-to ~50,000 years old) would produce an age other than ~50,000 years.
(They also think that Dr. Walter Libby invented radio-carbon dating. *shrug*)There are limitations to each method of measurement. To ignore them is stupid.
e.g. Take a grain of salt and measure its width with a ruler or its weight with your bathroom scales.Weighing a car with kitchen scales is stupid.
And dating dinosaurs bones using C-14 is just as stupid.

Yes, they could have found a skeleton.
Or they could have just imagined it.People have drawn 'dinosaur-looking' animals throughout history.
To arbitrarily claim that images from 2000 years ago are of extant dinosaurs but images from 1000 years ago are of extinct dinosaurs makes no sense, and simply assumes your conclusion - i.e. circular reasoning.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Again - another link filled with lies and misrepresentations. "Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex?": No. "With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)?": Nope. "It sounds preposterousto those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.": Not only preposterous, but also untrue.Seriously, stop believing these links without at least checking the original data.
(I find it indicative of deceit when that web-site does not have any links to external verification of it's claims.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

...who are secretly funded by The Global Stalinist Communist Evolutionist Marxist Brigade of Nazi Baby Killers!

Hi mindspawn, So the lack of a genetic bottleneck in humans is due to the sons of god impregnating humans, yes?Did the same sons of god impregnate all the animals which also do not have a genetic bottleneck?(And what did the cheetahs do wrong?)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Is that your final answer?

So - this skink is not a reptile as it gives birth to live young: .But this skink is a reptile as it lays eggs: Well, I am glad we cleared that up.

Are you retracting your "...have live young, not conforming to biological classification of reptiles at all" statement?If you like, we can move on the the 'warm-blooded' aspect of your claim after this. I would have preferred it if you had not ducked the issue.