[_ Old Earth _] How do dinosaurs fit with the Bible? @@@@@@

[AKJVReader]

I believe that man did walk with dinosaurs before the worldwide flood. Because God made ALL the animals. Also dinosaurs would have been hunted by men, and there would have been fights between dinosaurs themselves. And also why are there dinosaur bones in some places and not in others? Dinosaurs lived in particular places, they may have lived well away from men so that there are no human and dinosaur bones together.
After the flood it is probable that dinosaurs were released from the Ark, before you laugh consider that the animals on the Ark were most likely babies of either sex. Because to feed babies, you can have less food and water. And babies are cute too.
If behemoths, dragons, leviathans, unicorns existed which is true then dinosaurs lived with man too.

Genesis is very very sumbolic and metaphorical; literary devices such as "God created the world in 7 days" are just that, literary devices meant to convey another message through metaphors and symbols.

God created the world in 6 days. If the Bible says that then it is true, do you believe in Jesus as your Lord and your Saviour? If one part of the Bible is true then the rest is true too. Genesis is the foundation, first book in the Bible, Jesus is the graceful answer to Adam and Eve sinning and leaving Eden. Without Adam's sin Jesus would have died in vain. Genesis is more literal than what is said. It is quoted alot in the rest of the Bible. That means that the writers believed Genesis to be literal and true.

 

[Free]

If behemoths, dragons, leviathans, unicorns existed which is true then dinosaurs lived with man too.

Unicorns!? You do know they're mythical...right? This is clearly a mistranslation in the KJV.

 

[AKJVReader]

Unicorns!? You do know they're mythical...right? This is clearly a mistranslation in the KJV.

Can you prove that unicorn is a mistranslation in the KJV ?

 

[jasoncran]

there has been no found bones of unicorns at all. in fact even ken hamm says that the unicorn or its idea might come from species that had long horned like appendages that werent equine in nature at all. rather closer to the bovine species or a hippotamus.

 

[lordkalvan]

I believe that man did walk with dinosaurs before the worldwide flood.

Belief isn't evidence, unfortunately. All the available evidence indicates that dinosaurs were extinct long before the first humans appeared.

Because God made ALL the animals.

Why do you suppose that this reference to Genesis includes every animal that ever there could have been, rather than just a reference to all the animals that those who wrote Genesis were familiar with?

Also dinosaurs would have been hunted by men, and there would have been fights between dinosaurs themselves.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. If men fought dinosaurs, presumably some times they lost and ended up as lunch. Strange then that no human remains are found amongst carnivorous dinosaurs' coprolites.

And also why are there dinosaur bones in some places and not in others?

because fossilization is a rare event and the face of the Earth is forever undergoing change, reducing the fossil evidence even further?

Dinosaurs lived in particular places, they may have lived well away from men so that there are no human and dinosaur bones together.

You've just told us that men hunted dinosaurs, therefore they can't have lived very far away from each other and we would expect to find evidence of hunted dinosaurs at human settlements and evidence of their being hunted from fossil remains.

After the flood it is probable that dinosaurs were released from the Ark, before you laugh consider that the animals on the Ark were most likely babies of either sex. Because to feed babies, you can have less food and water. And babies are cute too.

And your evidence that the animals on the Ark were 'babies' is what, exactly? Young mammals need milk to sustain them. If all the mammals on the Ark were babies, where did this milk come from?

If behemoths, dragons, leviathans, unicorns existed which is true then dinosaurs lived with man too.

Well, as there is no evidence that behemoths, dragons, leviathans and unicorns existed (unless these are simply different names for animals that we are already familiar with), then your conclusion does not follow.

God created the world in 6 days. If the Bible says that then it is true, do you believe in Jesus as your Lord and your Saviour? If one part of the Bible is true then the rest is true too.

Truth comes in a variety of forms. Genesis is 'true' in the terms and understanding of the culture that wrote it. It can be regarded as inspirationally true today, without having to accept that its rather limited explanation of origins is factually correct.

Genesis is the foundation, first book in the Bible, Jesus is the graceful answer to Adam and Eve sinning and leaving Eden. Without Adam's sin Jesus would have died in vain. Genesis is more literal than what is said. It is quoted alot in the rest of the Bible. That means that the writers believed Genesis to be literal and true.

If Adam stands as an allegorical reflection of humanity's imperfection and tendency to sin, there is no need to denigrate Christ's sacrifice simply because an actual living, breathing Adam as described in the Bible did not exist as such.

 

[AKJVReader]

All the available evidence indicates that dinosaurs were extinct long before the first humans appeared.

Not true. There was a worldwide flood according to Genesis and the dinosaurs that were left to die ended up in the mud. Other creatures became fossils. An animal that decays cannot become a fossil. There was such a sudden oncoming of water and mud that there left markings of the animals that died quickly. Man was already on earth before the worldwide flood.

Why do you suppose that this reference to Genesis includes every animal that ever there could have been, rather than just a reference to all the animals that those who wrote Genesis were familiar with?

Moses wrote Genesis. He got His message from the Holy Spirit. I cannot disagree with the book of Genesis.

If men fought dinosaurs, presumably some times they lost and ended up as lunch. Strange then that no human remains are found amongst carnivorous dinosaurs' coprolites.

But the dinosaurs were not as dangerous as what people think. The T-Rex for example couldn't run fast because of its structure, there were very few dangerous dinosaurs so it was extremely rare for anyone to die from being attacked by a dinosaur. Consider the dinosaurs to be like elephants or rhinos, rather gentle most of the time.

because fossilization is a rare event and the face of the Earth is forever undergoing change, reducing the fossil evidence even further?

But we have found enough fossils already to make conclusions.

You've just told us that men hunted dinosaurs, therefore they can't have lived very far away from each other and we would expect to find evidence of hunted dinosaurs at human settlements and evidence of their being hunted from fossil remains.

Humans may not have settled near dinosaurs at all, how are you going to find evidence of them being hunted from fossils?

And your evidence that the animals on the Ark were 'babies' is what, exactly? Young mammals need milk to sustain them. If all the mammals on the Ark were babies, where did this milk come from?

The milk could have been collected before the Ark was closed, also there could have been adult animals as well as babies too.

Well, as there is no evidence that behemoths, dragons, leviathans and unicorns existed

I will believe the Bible, all these creatures are mentioned in it.

Truth comes in a variety of forms. Genesis is 'true' in the terms and understanding of the culture that wrote it. It can be regarded as inspirationally true today, without having to accept that its rather limited explanation of origins is factually correct.

i know that Moses wrote it, later on, but the Bible always says that Moses talked to God and angels and they would have known all about the Ark and dinosaurs etc Genesis must be taken as fact because that's the way it is presented, and besides no one alive today was ever back there to witness those events, so how can we say it isn't true? Also Genesis is the most quoted book in the 65 other books of the Bible so the later writers believed Genesis to be fact too, i trust God.

If Adam stands as an allegorical reflection of humanity's imperfection and tendency to sin, there is no need to denigrate Christ's sacrifice simply because an actual living, breathing Adam as described in the Bible did not exist as such.

But Christ came because of what happened to Adam! Adam sinned and was forced out of the Paradise of Eden and Jesus Christ came to earth so that people that believe in Him will be able to go to Heaven.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not true.

I'm afraid it is true that there is no robust evidence that shows humans and dinosaurs co-existed. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, I would be happy to consider it.

There was a worldwide flood according to Genesis and the dinosaurs that were left to die ended up in the mud.

What about all the other animals 'that were left to die'? Why didn't they end 'in the mud' mixed up with all the dinosaurs?

Other creatures became fossils. An animal that decays cannot become a fossil.

Which is why there are (relatively speaking) so few fossils in comparison to the number of animals that have ever lived.

There was such a sudden oncoming of water and mud that there left markings of the animals that died quickly.

Local floods do this as well. How can you tell the difference?

Man was already on earth before the worldwide flood.

Absent evidence for such a worldwide flood, I regard the biblical story as an allegorical morality tale, perhaps loosely based around the experiences of some of the survivors of a serious local flood.

Moses wrote Genesis. He got His message from the Holy Spirit. I cannot disagree with the book of Genesis.

I didn't ask who wrote Genesis, I asked why you considered 'all' to refer to every animal that ever lived rather than to only all of those that the writers of Genesis were familiar with?

But the dinosaurs were not as dangerous as what people think. The T-Rex for example couldn't run fast because of its structure...

Fast enough to catch most humans, though:

Dr Hutchinson’s work suggests that an upper speed limit for T. rex would fall in the 10-25mph range. That’s about the same speed as the best human sprinters.

Source: BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - T.rex - Warrior or Wimp?

...there were very few dangerous dinosaurs so it was extremely rare for anyone to die from being attacked by a dinosaur. Consider the dinosaurs to be like elephants or rhinos, rather gentle most of the time.

However, rhinos and elephants do kill people, so I am not sure what your point is. Also, carnivorous animals are more likely to prey on humans than herbivorous ones.

But we have found enough fossils already to make conclusions.

These conclusions being?

Humans may not have settled near dinosaurs at all, how are you going to find evidence of them being hunted from fossils?

The same way we find out from fossils about other animals (such as mammoths) being hunted. the same way we find remains of the animals hunted in the midden heaps and at the campsites of ancient hunters.

The milk could have been collected before the Ark was closed, also there could have been adult animals as well as babies too.

How would the milk have been collected, stored and prevented from going sour? What evidence do you have? If there were adult animals, that immediately invalidates your argument that the Ark animals were all 'babies'.

I will believe the Bible, all these creatures are mentioned in it.

You can believe whatever you wish to believe, but you cannot simply present your beliefs as incontestable facts.

i know that Moses wrote it, later on, but the Bible always says that Moses talked to God and angels and they would have known all about the Ark and dinosaurs etc Genesis must be taken as fact because that's the way it is presented, and besides no one alive today was ever back there to witness those events, so how can we say it isn't true?

We are capable of drawing reasoned conclusions about past events by the evidence left by the consequences of those events. You weren't around to see dinosaurs being born, living, dying and becoming fossilized, so how do you reach the conclusions that dinosaur 'fossils' are the remains of once living animals rather than simply rather bizarre rock formations?

Also Genesis is the most quoted book in the 65 other books of the Bible so the later writers believed Genesis to be fact too, i trust God.

What later writers may or may not have believed does not establish that what they believed was actual fact. Why don't you trust God to speak truly about his creation in that creation itself, rather than in the writings of a pre-scientific culture trying to come to terms with that creation in terms of their limited understanding and knowledge?

But Christ came because of what happened to Adam! Adam sinned and was forced out of the Paradise of Eden and Jesus Christ came to earth so that people that believe in Him will be able to go to Heaven.

I think you miss my point, which is that Adam stands as an allegorical representation of the sinfulness of humanity as a whole. It is a bizarre idea that every human that has ever been born should be forever condemned for the error of one person in the remote past. In these terms, Christ's sacrifice stands no less generous, selfless and important than it does in yours.

 

[Deavonreye]

And here is the problem with the uber worship of a book written by men. "It MUST be true" creates situations where rationalizations [therefore] MUST be made when the information just doesn't make any sense at all [ie. they were babies, they collected milk, dinosaurs were mild] and all because the "Noah flood account" [as such] MUST be a literal account.

However, direct evidence DIRECTLY contradicts all of this and [not trying to be offensive] makes such statements appear as "foollish".

No, dinosaurs didn't exist with man. There was no global flood ~4,400 years ago.

 

[AKJVReader]

So you know i take Genesis literally, i have found these excellent resources for you to look at, they are produced by Creation Scientists, i think that they make sense:

http://www.forbidden-history.com/index.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

 

[jasoncran]

So you know i take Genesis literally, i have found these excellent resources for you to look at, they are produced by Creation Scientists, i think that they make sense:

Forbidden History: Dinosaurs and the Bible

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

the two counter arguers are athiest/agnostic. the agnostic is devonrye.

 

[Free]

And here is the problem with the uber worship of a book written by men. "It MUST be true" creates situations where rationalizations [therefore] MUST be made when the information just doesn't make any sense at all

The very same can be said of evolution, at certain points....just saying it goes both ways. It's not on topic so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Deavonreye]

The very same can be said of evolution, at certain points....just saying it goes both ways. It's not on topic so I'll leave it at that.

A thought came to my mind, and I found it to be pretty profound in its truth. If what scientists have discovered [via their extensive study and experimentation] actually corresponded with biblical accounts with absolute certainty, . . . scientists would be the most devout followers of god on the planet.

 

[AKJVReader]

A thought came to my mind, and I found it to be pretty profound in its truth. If what scientists have discovered [via their extensive study and experimentation] actually corresponded with biblical accounts with absolute certainty, . . . scientists would be the most devout followers of god on the planet.

What "god" would you follow? The Hindus have 1000's of gods, and then there are
the egyptian and greek gods. There are many false gods out there. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

Don't take this next verse wrongly, what i'm trying to point out is that there is evidence for God all around us, the sun, gravity, weather, animals, human bodies, trees, dna, birds, the atmosphere, physics, chemistry, archaeology, and the Bible all contain evidence that there are laws and order, an intelligent designer and that there is a God.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Romans 1:20-21).

As well as the links i provided in my previous post, here is another link that will answer questions you have about Biblical Creation:
http://creation.com/

 

[Deavonreye]

What "god" would you follow? The Hindus have 1000's of gods, and then there are
the egyptian and greek gods. There are many false gods out there. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

Don't take this next verse wrongly, what i'm trying to point out is that there is evidence for God all around us, the sun, gravity, weather, animals, human bodies, trees, dna, birds, the atmosphere, physics, chemistry, archaeology, and the Bible all contain evidence that there are laws and order, an intelligent designer and that there is a God.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." (Romans 1:20-21).

As well as the links i provided in my previous post, here is another link that will answer questions you have about Biblical Creation:
Creation - Creation Ministries International

No sir/ma`am. Read my quote again. IF THE BIBLE had agreeing evidence with what science has discovered, . . . scientists would be devout. They do NOT, however. Verses are meaningless when you are talking about that which is agreed with via evidence. The order you mention does NOT conclude an "intelligent designer". The laws themselves must do what they do, . . . due to the physical forces, chemical reactions are bound to these laws. It's what makes crystals form as they do. . . .or snow flakes. Not because of "magical forces", but because OF these nuclear forces at work in the universe.

But for the sake of argument, . . . . let's say that there IS a god, . . . Romans 1:20 cannot be used to "damn those who didn't believe". Put simply, the verse states that a person, JUST by looking at nature, can ONLY come to the conclusion that there was "some god, from some other culture, who created all things, but became wrathful over 'sin', so sent 'his son' to die for the 'sins of the world', and this 'son' is the ONLY way to escape a tortuous afterlife, and believing in this 'son' and accepting him into your heart, serving him the rest of your living days, and you will go to heaven when you die." All this just because a person looks at . . . a flower? . . . . . A cloud? . . . . . . . . . . . Really?

If this god wants people to be "without excuse", then he MUST come to each person on their own level, make a case, and THEN the person's choice will be a true one. As it is, all there is . . . is a book that many people CLAIM to be divine. No evidence of it. And thousands of other religions who make the same claim [of being the true one].

Finally, . . . even IF the only conclusion was that this order was only obtainable via the magical works of a deity, you would have no evidence that YOUR god was the source.

The OP, and purpose of this thread, is about "how dinosaurs fit in with the bible". Evidence clearly, and without any question, denies the idea of dinosaurs and man living together, and them [dinosaurs] dying out due to the flood. For you MUST consider that IF god wanted ALL animals on the ark [two of each kind of non-cerimonial animals], ask yourself why NONE of the dinosaurs lived. . . . then ask yourself why they would have been on the ark IF god was omniscient.

 

[AKJVReader]

If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?

Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live together. This is a false assumption. If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together. As the floodwaters advanced during the global Flood, humans would have fled to higher ground, swam or held on to floating debris for as long as possible.
Also, human corpses bloat and therefore float on the water’s surface. Hence very few, if any, humans would be buried by sediment. Instead they would have rotted and decayed without fossilization.
It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn’t escape the sediment and water. When we look at the fossil record we find:

• 95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
• 95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
• 95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates, including insects.
• The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.

So, we shouldn’t expect to find many human fossils at all. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediments, but the creation/Flood model doesn’t require it.
Remember, we don’t find human bones buried with coelacanths either, but we live together today (coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive). And some may even be enjoying them for dinner!

Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan?

Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau, a Russian newspaper has reported. Journalist Alexander Bushev reported in the 31 January 1995 edition of Komsomolskaya Pravda (one of the most popular newspapers of the former USSR) that he had journeyed to the plateau near the village of Khodga-Pil in Turkmenistan, and had seen the fossilized prints of dinosaurs and humans together. According to evolutionary theory, dinosaurs had become extinct long before humans first appeared on earth. Bushev said that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints. Bushev said that Turkmenian scientist Kurban Amanniyazov considers this Jurassic plateau to be at least 200 million years old.
‘But the most mysterious fact’, Bushev added, ‘is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!’ He suggested that, because ‘we know’ that humans appeared much later than dinosaurs, there was an extraterrestrial ‘who walked in his swimming suit along the sea-side’.
This report about dinosaur and human footprints on Kughitang-Tau Plateau is not the first. The news was reported to readers of the English version of Moscow News in 1983 (No. 24, p. 10). This was during a period when communists strictly controlled the ideological aspect of all publications, so an article of that kind could be published only with official commentary from a representative of official State science.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/dinosaurs

 

[Free]

A thought came to my mind, and I found it to be pretty profound in its truth. If what scientists have discovered [via their extensive study and experimentation] actually corresponded with biblical accounts with absolute certainty, . . . scientists would be the most devout followers of god on the planet.

Well, no, actually. And my initial response to your argument proves that to be the case. And of course there are scientists who very much believe in God and whose faith is made all the stronger by what science has found.

You are here presuming that science is correct on everything relating to evolution when, as I was pointing out previously, materialists are just as likely to use "evolution of the gaps" arguments as some Christians are to use "God of the gaps" arguments.

 

[lordkalvan]

So you know i take Genesis literally, i have found these excellent resources for you to look at, they are produced by Creation Scientists, i think that they make sense:

Forbidden History: Dinosaurs and the Bible

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

If this is a reply to my post, I don't know what I am supposed to make of it. Am I to read your linked sites and infer your answers to my questions and responses to my points here? What grounds do you have for calling any of the contributors to the linked topics 'scientists'? Mike Matthews, for example, has a BA in English and an MEd in English Education.

 

[lordkalvan]

Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live together.

Umm, that's not the only reason. Just to be clear as well, fossilized remains are not actual bones. Human bones could be found with dinosaur fossils for a variety of reasons, but whether they were or not they would not be dated as coexisting for many reasons.

This is a false assumption. If human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren’t buried together. As the floodwaters advanced during the global Flood, humans would have fled to higher ground, swam or held on to floating debris for as long as possible.

So you're saying that dinosaurs couldn't run as swiftly as human beings? What about flying dinosaurs? What about dinosaurs that could clearly move more quickly than many mammals (sloths, for example)? Why aren't those mammals' remains found before dinosaur remains in geologic strata?

Also, human corpses bloat and therefore float on the water’s surface. Hence very few, if any, humans would be buried by sediment. Instead they would have rotted and decayed without fossilization.

Virtually all dead animals with digestive systems will bloat after death due to the gases of decomposition. What leads you to suppose dinosaurs were any different?

It is expected that marine creatures and plants were the first things buried and fossilized, since they are at a lower elevation and couldn’t escape the sediment and water.

Why would we 'expect' marine creatures to be the first to be 'buried and fossilized'? I thought it was a flood? Wouldn't you expect marine creatures to be 'buried and fossilized' later in the process, rather than earlier, as all those mud-laden floodwaters lost their power?

When we look at the fossil record we find:

• 95% of all fossils were marine organisms.
• 95% of the remaining 5% were algae, plants/trees.
• 95% of the remaining 0.25% were invertebrates, including insects.
• The remaining 0.0125% were vertebrates, mostly fish.

In order to make sense of your list, you need to tell us what proportion of all organisms were marine organisms, algae and plants/trees, invertebrates and fish. Aren't fish 'marine organisms', by the way? I find these categories rather vague and ill thought-out, but perhaps that's the intention.

So, we shouldn’t expect to find many human fossils at all. There is still the possibility of finding human fossils in the lower levels of Flood sediments, but the creation/Flood model doesn’t require it.

Eh, no, the 'creation/Flood model' needs to explain this absence away, which is why such vague hypotheses as those you have enumerated have been put forward.

Remember, we don’t find human bones buried with coelacanths either, but we live together today (coelacanths are a type of fish, which scientists claimed to have gone extinct millions of years ago but have recently been found alive). And some may even be enjoying them for dinner!

Given the different environments that these two animals exist in, why would you expect this to happen at all? Here's a thought for you: Ichthyosaurs, sharks and dolphins share pretty much the same environment and are very similar in appearance, size and, as far as we know, habitat and yet while we find fossil sharks and fossil Ichthyosaurs in the same strata, and fossil sharks and fossil dolphins in the same strata, we never find fossil dolphins and fossil Ichthyosaurs in the same strata. Why do you suppose that is? Likewise we never find fossil African gazelles and fossil African Lesothosauruses in the same strata, despite them being very similar animals in terms of habitat, size, agility, etc. Why do you suppose that is as well?

Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan?

Human footprints lie alongside thousands of dinosaur prints on a Turkmenian plateau, a Russian newspaper has reported. Journalist Alexander Bushev reported in the 31 January 1995 edition of Komsomolskaya Pravda (one of the most popular newspapers of the former USSR) that he had journeyed to the plateau near the village of Khodga-Pil in Turkmenistan, and had seen the fossilized prints of dinosaurs and humans together. According to evolutionary theory, dinosaurs had become extinct long before humans first appeared on earth. Bushev said that every metre of the half-kilometre-wide rock surface is covered by three-toed footprints ‘made by giant dinosaurs making their morning or evening promenade along the ancient sea-shore’. The Turkmenian plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints. Bushev said that Turkmenian scientist Kurban Amanniyazov considers this Jurassic plateau to be at least 200 million years old.
‘But the most mysterious fact’, Bushev added, ‘is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!’ He suggested that, because ‘we know’ that humans appeared much later than dinosaurs, there was an extraterrestrial ‘who walked in his swimming suit along the sea-side’.
This report about dinosaur and human footprints on Kughitang-Tau Plateau is not the first. The news was reported to readers of the English version of Moscow News in 1983 (No. 24, p. 10). This was during a period when communists strictly controlled the ideological aspect of all publications, so an article of that kind could be published only with official commentary from a representative of official State science.

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis

And Bushev's apparent lack of training as a palaeontologist allowed him to identify these various footprints with what degree of confidence exactly? Was he (and are you) aware that erosion, in-filling and mud-collapse - amongst other things - can all obscure and distort dinosaur footprints so that unskilled observers can read into them quite misleading conclusions?

 

[AKJVReader]

If this is a reply to my post, I don't know what I am supposed to make of it. Am I to read your linked sites and infer your answers to my questions and responses to my points here?

I'm not an expert at talking about dinosaurs and how man lived with them. Those sites have answers to the questions that i was getting from you. Please read them, i'm not asking you to give me an answer here at the forum i'm trying to point you to answers to the questions wherever they be. What i'm seeing is a debate where there are still alot of guessing coming from both sides and because no one alive on earth today has lived with dinosaurs, we can only make general conclusions. Before the flood things were a bit different, i mean people in the Bible were living to over 900 years of age, the Bible states that angels came and had offspring with human women. And the offspring were called Nephilim and giants. So are you going to believe that too? I mean there are miracles mentioned right through Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I believe in the miracles of the Bible as a matter of faith. There are still miracles happening today. I hope that you can reconcile man living with dinosaurs.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm not an expert at talking about dinosaurs and how man lived with them. Those sites have answers to the questions that i was getting from you. Please read them, i'm not asking you to give me an answer here at the forum i'm trying to point you to answers to the questions wherever they be.

And I am supposed to discuss those answers how, exactly?

What i'm seeing is a debate where there are still alot of guessing coming from both sides and because no one alive on earth today has lived with dinosaurs, we can only make general conclusions.

None of that 'guessing' is based on any robust evidence that suggests humans and dinosaurs co-existed. We can make reasoned conclusions about past events based on the consequences of those events, i.e. the evidence they leave behind them. None of that evidence supports human/dinosaur co-existence.

Before the flood things were a bit different, i mean people in the Bible were living to over 900 years of age, the Bible states that angels came and had offspring with human women. And the offspring were called Nephilim and giants. So are you going to believe that too?

Why would I believe apparently mythological tales that have no more evidence to support them than the mythical tales of other cultures? Why would I suppose that the limited understanding of a pre-scientific culture talking about things that made 'sense' to them in ways that were 'meaningful' to them has anything to tell us of any significance about the actual history of Earth and humanity's place on it?

I mean there are miracles mentioned right through Genesis and the rest of the Bible. I believe in the miracles of the Bible as a matter of faith. There are still miracles happening today.

That's your choice, but I don't see any evidence that miracles have occurred now or in the past.

I hope that you can reconcile man living with dinosaurs.

Why should I be able to reconcile something that clearly didn't happen?