Did dinosaurs and man coexist?

Despite what most people have said, there is fossil evidence of men and dinosaurs co-existing. I've seen fossils (like actually SEEN, not just in pictures) of a dino- foot print and a human foot print. This evidence should work for the the strickly science type of people. As far as the whole dragon thing goes, it is a -type- of evidence because how likely is it that during a time with limited international communication, 2 people from vastly different places could describe nearly the same thing? It only makes sense that men and dinosaurs co-existed.

I hate to seem argumentative but...

quote:

---

The man/dinosaur footprint claim is an old and extremely doubtful one

---

Regardless of its age, the point is still quite valid. Just because an argument is ignored doesn't mean it should be discounted

quote:

---

you're probably thinking of the Paluxy River prints in Glen Rose, Texas, which even the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research now disavow.

---

As a matter of fact, that is the place I am referring to, I'm rather imporessed you knew it. As far as it being "disavowed", I live rather close and have not heard such news, you may want to check that.

quote:

---

Rather than rehashing this issue, perhaps you could look into this a little more (there's plenty of material on the Internet) and explain why it's deserving of further attention at this time.

---

Again, I do not mean to sound arrogent or haughty at all but I have actually quite a bit of research on this subject, as well as most other mythological creatures. I do infact have a slight idea, as I'm sure you do as well, which is what makes a debate great.

The fossil I saw was not as your described. Both the dinosaur and the human had toes. Well the dinosuar had 3 "toe-like" features but I don't know their technical name. The human foot print had 2 distinct dimples where the toes should be and the other 3 could be seen but I could understand someone arguing that they're not there. I don't know the exact measurments of the foot but it appeared normal. Secondly, there are possiblities as to why there are not other fossils found with dino- fossils. The Egyptians, for instance, put their dead in tombs, in which case their bones would not be found with dino- bones because they were not buried. Many civilzation could have had the same custom. It is also possible (this sounds gross, I'm sorry if it offends you) that the dead could have been burned and their bones ground into dust and possibly even used for other things. It sounds morbid but its not a foriegn concept.

Admin, I fail to see where the essay you've presented disproves the foot prints? It does give possiblities that may account for a few fossils, but it doesn't discount them altogether? Why then is this an "out dated" argument?