1925 Dinosaur

[godslanguage]

Once such evidence is found and confirmed, the theory of the coexistence of man and dinosaurs will be well on the way to acceptance.

This will never happen because even if they coexisted back then, the majority or all of them do not exist now. For this statement (dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago) to be taken out of science text books would take alot more than 1 or 2 plesiosaurs and ancient artifacts that depict them.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Yes Bgood you clearly indicate why the theory of the coexistence of man and dinos will never make it, because it is the same old reject any contradicting evidence and stick to the party line. your statments ignore a host of "anomolies", and reject all the eyewitness and pictorial accounts.

No you're the one who mistakes anecdotes and pictures as physical evidence.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Anecdotes? Pictures?

What does evolution have? Storyline without even the anecdotes or the pictures.

You mentioned teeth below, and living animals aren't anecdotes are they?

You can't just reject the collaboration of all these stories, and the collaboration of all the artwork, and the collaboration of all the anomolies, and the collaboration of dinosaur and human footprints.

Sure I can just as if I had found a bag of cocaine in your car but had no proof that I had taken it from your car. This evidence would no longer be acceptable.

IT would seem an inquiring mind might go hmmmm instead of reverting to the tired line about all these animals that are concocted from a jawbone or s ingle tooth. The physical evidnce for evolution having accoured is pretty shabby at best, and more likely non-existent.

Were we talking about evolution? This creature did exist, this is not shabby evidence.

The evidence for evolution having occoured as in the storyline of modern day evolution makes the evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinos seem overwhelming.

What do you mean?

If these dinos actually lived recently mightn't we find dinos that still have DNA, or dinos that still show soft flesh?

You seem to simply reject the notion because you feel threatened by it.

I'm not threatened in the least. Just not convinced.

[godslanguage]

evidence.

You haven't noticed this is just a rotten pumpkin from halloween that someone made to look like a skull.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

I understand you not being convinced, after all you think it is absurd to think that dinos lived just a short while ago.

If numerous people said they saw you take the cocaine from my car I would be in trouble.

VIable DNA in dinos, eyewitness reports, geological anomalies, footprints of man and dinos together. The evidnece is there, but you reject it all because it is foolishness to you.

That's fine really, but I think it goes more to what you want to be true, than a fair examination of the evidence.

Were the Japaneese seamen and Govt biologist said to be mistaken so that their expert account of dragging up a dino can be rejected?

was Someone carving human tracks in strata in texas then burying them under tons of shale.

You can reject the evidence if you like. Believe it to be absurd and you will come up with all manner of explanations, and attack the accounts as lies, anything but to entertain the idea that the preponderence of the evidence suggests just what it appears to suggest.

It is not absurd necessarily to believe dinosaurs lived a short while ago. We have forms of dinosaurs still alive today in similar form to what they were as evidenced in the geologic record. Crocodiles for instance appear to be in similar form, although not as large as earlier specimens. What is absurd is to believe that all the forms that the geologic record shows were alive less than 6,000 years ago.

Appeals to mythology as evidence of dinosaurs are not very convincing. Drawings in caves do not depict scale and lizards have been with us all the while, so that is not very convincing.

Claims of Dinosaur DNA have more often than not been determined to be Human contaminents.

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/dna.htm

There's no reason to reject forms of dinosaurs being found, where the sightings and more importantly the physical evidence would be good. There's just not good evidence. The Loch Ness Monster and BigFoot have plenty of sightings. Do you accept them as reported? There may be something there, but it is evident that the human mind and suggestion have a great deal to do with these types of reports.

Footprints of man and dinos together, see this link.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

Note there are many, many links below the main article giving a very broad examination of many of these claims.

The plesiosaur claim from 1954, is questionable on several levels.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_ ... _henke.htm

What is remarkable in all these claims is how little evidence there is for them in the first place. If Dinosaurs were alive and destroyed in the flood with all of mankind except the 8 on the ark, you would expect for there to be multiple cases of human bones found with dinosaur bones instead of just the few where the more plausible explanation appears to be strata shifting or human intrusion by digging down.

Why is this not the case?

If these dinosaurs were alive at the time of Noah, why were they not on the ark? Do you have a textually consistent explanation?

By the way, did you know that Elvis is still alive? It's true. Look at all the people who have claimed to see him.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

Believe what you will, and reject what you will.

What animals were on the ark then?

Which dinos have complete skeletons and which are concoctions of just a single bone or a single tooth.

What is absurd about all the forms being alive in 6000 years?

Well, thank you very much for your permission in this regard.

I'll be happy to asnwer your questions. I asked you some and I think it would be appropriate for you to answer them and then I'll be happy to deal with yours.

Fair enough?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Believe what you will, and reject what you will.

What do you make of this?

[Canuckster1127]

Believe what you will, and reject what you will.

What do you make of this?

While it seems likely to me that there is not any real strong evidence of a plesiosaur, I don't see what the existence of one would prove or not prove in terms of the Old Earth - Young Earth Debate anyway.

The ocean is very big. There's a lot there we've no doubt not seen. Giant Squid have just recently been photographed live for the first time.

The existence of a form of dinosaur in this regard would be fascinating, but it would not prove anything one way or the other in terms of the age of the earth.

YEC's would like to believe it would prove something I guess. The question I think it begs is if dinosaurs were alive in all forms fossilized up to Noah's Flood, then why are there not many more and why are they not comingled with all forms of life in the fossil record.

I've never heard a remotely convincing explanation for this.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone