What's the creationists thought on this?

Carbon Dating Doesnt work well. As a creation scientist, let me explain. I'd like to explain here, but please refer to the posted message back in the forum (I want a lot of people to read it, so I posted it in the forum for more people to see).As for dinosaurs--they were around only a few thousand years ago. Let me explain: it was 6115 years ago, give or take about three to five years (I know this because Abraham from the Bible was born 2166 years ago, and all you have to do is add up the ages of ALL the people from Adam to Abraham, which are all listed in the Bible's book of Genesis). Then about 4500 years ago there was a flood (you know which one, right?) Anyway, contrary to what many creationists believe, the flood DID NOT kill the dinosaurs (the Bible says that Noah took ALL the living creatures onto the ark). Anyway, the dinosaurs died out slowly in the years following the flood--because they were the biggest animals among the others, and since the flood killed off most of the vegetation on the earth, the largest animals began to die off by lack of food. Within a few years of the flood, the rest of the animals began eating the vegetation that began, after living off the large animals that had died. Anyway, do you have a Bible at you house? If so, look up Job 40:15-24 for a Bible passage that describes a dinosaur "behemoth is Hebrew for 'excellent beast'" Well, the word 'dinosaur' was not a word until the year 1841, (up until then, they were called dragons). Yes, the Bible mentions dragons and beasts dozens of times. In 1611 the Chinese emperor appointed the job position of "royal dragon feeder" indicating that the Chinese actually had dragons to feed! Beowulf is the legend of a European warrior who was famous for dying while fighting a great dragon. Gilgamesh is a Mid-East legend involving the sleighing of a dragon. Marco Polo (the real explorer) returned from China in the 1600's, saying that the Chinese emperor was using live dragons in his parades! There are over 11,000 eye-witness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster--some are fraud, but if you show a model of a plesiosaur (an aquatic dinosaur) they will tell you that that was EXACTLY what they saw! There are over 10,000 accounts of dinosaurs and dragons being seen and told about in legend, spanning from Native America to China, to Europe, to Africa. In the swamp of central Africa there are STILL eye-witness accounts of living dinosaurs! The Ceolocanth was thought to be a fish that was part-dinosaur and was extinct for millions of years, but then they discovered that it's still alive in the Indian Ocean. At the Grand Canyon and In Utah caves there are numerous ancient drawings of dinosaurs--and they are very detailed and precise...... trust me, the evidence is VERY extensive that dinosaurs were around recently, and were living with humans since the dawn of time (6115 years ago).

Sorry, I meant Abraham lived 2166 BC, not years ago... (my mistake)

Sure, by the way, the Ceolocanth, which I studied in high-school science, was thought to have had part-fins and part-arms (the fins were bulkier and tougher than normal, so the evolutionists saw it as a missing link). So, the ceolocanth, because it lived with dinosaurs AND seen as an anatomical 'missing link' THEY view it as a missing link.As for the cave art:visit these sites for articles concerning dinosaur cave art: Dinosaur Adventure Land -- (creation science evangelism)The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Researchhttp://www.projectcreation.org

That depends on your definition of reliable.
I have read many hundreds of anti-Hovind remarks, and they ALL either make personal attacks at HIM (unnecessary) or they make propositions and hypotheses that go against him and claim that Hovind lied. Honestly, if you had actual, irrefutable, empirical PROOF for evolution, Hovind would pay up.I have spoken to him personally a little on that, and he has had only a handful of people approach him with their "proof" for evolution. Fossils, radiometric dating, and the geologic strata would not hold up in a court of law as PROOF for evolution--consider the OPEN-MINDED creationist to be the Jury that will decide whether or not substantial evidence exists for evolution.G. K. Chesterton said: "The evolutionists seem to know everythin about the missing link except the fact that it is missing."Isaac Newton said: "In absence of any other proof, the human thumb alone would convince me of God's existence."Consider those two statements. The thumb is of remarkable design that allows us to pick things up easily, (it would have been much harder to type this comment if I had not thumbs). If we evolved by chance, how would "evolution" know that we would be in need of a thumb millions of years down the road? It seems to me that everything around us--plants, brains, eyes, ears, taste buds, cats, dogs, books, electricity, sunlight, and even the belief in God--is all evidence that there must be a God. After all, a nationwide pole shows that 7% of people in the US are actual atheists, and 47% believe the earth to be created within the last 10 thousand years.
Sources:Comfort, Ray. "God Doesn't Believe in Atheists."Dept. of EducationDept. of Health and Human Resources

Seriously, I don't doubt that Dr. Hovind has research of his own that would disagree with many other creationists. (that's part of the problem--if all the public creationists like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, John Morris, Dr. Gentry, Brian Young, Vance Ferrell, Ray Comfort, Bill Sardi, Dr. Gish, and Dr. Comninellis settled their minor differences and agreed to combine their ministries to make one supreme creation science movement then they might be much more affective).
On the other hand, I trust the research of Hovind's that remains consistent with the Bible and with other creationists (that would make it much more compelling for me to believe). And there is plenty of it (I've seen all 15 hours of Hovind's seminars and he has an abundance of research consistent with the majority of creationists listed above.)
Well, Let's get back to the main topic...
For you creationists out there: do you think that the creation scientists listed above should form a creation movement (combine) and be more effective? I realize it's not likely, but that should at least be discussed.In Christ,
Booboo

Show me your overwhelming evidence for evolution. It seems to me that all that is really nothing more than overwhelming speculation and overwhelming non-scientific arguments.Let me see another one of your most powerful, irrefutable arguments right here and I’ll show you that your ‘brick’ has not strong foundation (i.e. not real evidence).
As for the evolutionists, Dr. Gentry is one of the most brilliant creationists I have ever read abouthe has done overwhelming research on radio-polonium halos in a prevailing attempt to prove that the earth was never a ‘hot molten mass’ the way evolutionists believe it started.Also, there is no way of knowing that the geologic column (that many seem to worship) is a truthful scenario. Get Brian Young’s book entitled Doubts About Creation? and you’ll see plenty of examples why the geologic column is phony. As for here; many of the layers are overlapping (just go to the Grand Canyon, or the Green River formation, or the Mt. St. Helens formation, or Joggins Nova Scotia, or Cannon Beach Oregon, or the Columbia River Gorge, or the Oregon fossil beds, and you’ll notice that many of the layers, which are supposed to represent thousands or even millions of years, are overlapping, which indicate they are in fact the same age). Also, I’m still waiting on WHY the polystrate fossils as I have seen in Joggins Nova Scotia and Oregon are NOT ample proof of the flood (or at least evidence against the geologic column).In Christ,
Booboo