Dinosaurs living with humans?

Oh yeah? Exactly what are the probabilities? Numbers, please, and I'd like to see your math.How small a probability is "impossible"? The "explosion" you refer to constitutes a time period several million years long. To put that into perspective, a lot of the plant species you're familiar with day-to-day are significantly younger than that. No such lack. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. As you can see, among the species we would expect to fossilize - vertebrates - we find a number of transitional forms. This is just a flat-out lie. There's no such footprints. Well, no wonder you're a creationist - you believe things for the wrong reasons.Around here, you'll find that evolutionists are convinced by evidence, not by authority or pedanticism. Care to provide some evidence? There's that argument from statistics, again, but you keep forgetting to actually give any statistics. Why is that, exactly? I've seen pictures of the "footprints" you're talking about - the 20" long ones, right? - and I don't see how anybody but an idiot can come to the conclusion that an enormous, misshapen, eroded pit with no visible toeprints, heel depression, or instep is supposed to be a "human footprint."Unless you're talking about different prints, or something. It'd be nice if you could hit us with pictures.

The average male, during orgasm, ejactulates somewhere between 40 and 600 million sperm. Only one of them fertilizes an egg.The odds that the result of that fertilization would be you, therefore, is something on the order of one in 40 to 600 million. The odds that you exist are, at best, 1 in 40 million.Are we supposed to conclude that you don't exist, therefore, because the odds are too low that you do? I guess so.

Exactly right. Trying to determine probability afer the fact is ridiculous and "messed up." So why did you try to do it? That's what I dont understand. Apparently, you knew your argument was based on a ridiculous premise - obviously, because you recognized the ridiculousness of the same argument turned against you - so why did you offer it in the first place? No, it's not.Meiosis includes "crossover", where elements from complimentary chromosomes are exchanged. That means there's considerable variation among sperm in terms of exactly which genes they have and don't have. The sperm that fertilized your zygote wasn't one of 20 million exact copies. It may very well have had an entirely unique mix of genes. Obviously, they're not. Where did I say that they were? Please, don't put words in my mouth - especially not such stupid ones, ok? If you didn't have the unique mix of genes that you possess, you wouldn't be you. Since the odds of you possessing that unique mix are so low - one in millions - are we supposed to conclude that you aren't yourself?Or are we just supposed to conclude - as you so rightly did - that trying to argue from probability after the fact is an exercise in tomfoolery?

If that's true, then why was your argument based on the odds of forming chemicals that are required, as far as we know, only for our kind of life?You don't seem to be too clear on what you're arguing.