Did Man and Dinosaures co-exist?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
actually I have done a little research on this tax deal. there are certain codes to follow in paying taxes.

A ministry, for example, can get tax exempt status. Of course, you still have to actually apply for it, and Hovind never did that. What do you think about his lawyer loosing a tax fraud case that was brought against him recently (wherein the lawyer helped people illegally dodge their tax responsibility?) Also, I am curious; lots of more reactionary christians don't want to pay taxes to the secular, ungodly government. But jesus was happy to give caesar, of all things, his taxes. Surely the US government doesn't compare to the Roman Persecuting government no?

when does Hovind have time to debate anyone online?

Thats the great thing about online debates. You can do it at anytime, over any length of time. He doesn't participate, because

1. He can't raise money without going to a congregation or audience
   
2. He has nothing to actually back up his positions
   

The opponents on these four takes are all professors, college professors.
and they all look pretty dumb whenever hovind debates them.

Which four?

I have no doubt that hovind tries to make them 'look dumb' or casts them as fools. Thats basically all he can do in a debate. Thats why his lectures are so often made up of a congregation, he's often preaching to the choir as they say (but not allways of course)

In order to make a drawing of something that existed but was never seen, what needs to be done in order to make an accurate drawing?

How is that evidence for the co-existence of man and dinosaurs?

For now I think Man did not evolve from prehistoric times. I do think Man may have been planted then the Ape, perhap's the Ape evolved from the planted Man?

Dallas

How is that evidence for the co-existence of man and dinosaurs?

well in order to get drawings of what dinosaur skin looked like, you kinda need a live dinosaur to do that. and why would someone draw dinosuars and humans together on pottery and stones? thats just dumb if they were making it up.

EC

This argument has been answered several times before.. and AGAIN no you don't need a live dinosaur to know what a dinosaur looked like. All you need is some bones, imagination or co-incidence. Scientists have indeed not always been sure if they'd guessed right regrading their skin.. they've gone by the evidence available.
This argument has been refuted before so why keep using it? It's getting stale.

Do you watch science fiction movies and action movies thinking the director or writer must have seen the creature for there to be skin on it?

King Kong? There must be a giant ape because "thats [sic] just dumb if they were making it up."

X-Files? All those stories and creatures must be real because "thats [sic] just dumb if they were making it up."

Gulliver's Travels? All those people he met must be real because "thats [sic] just dumb if they were making it up."

I could go on, but you understand my point. The human imagination is infinite.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well in order to get drawings of what dinosaur skin looked like, you kinda need a live dinosaur to do that. and why would someone draw dinosuars and humans together on pottery and stones? thats just dumb if they were making it up.
EC

The stones were fabrications, as I'm sure we're all aware by now.

When you think of aliens, do you get an image in your mind? Where did that image come from - a live alien? I doubt it.

Tyrannosaurus rex means "tyrant lizard king." When artists depict the dinosaur's skin as lizard-like, they are drawing inspiration from lizard skin.

Zip

All you need is some bones, imagination or co-incidence.

imagination? thats evolution for you right there. I was talking about the fossilized dinosaur skin that had the same circle patterns as the one on the drawing. that does not show imagination, that shows a witness.

EC

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

All you need is some bones, imagination or co-incidence.

imagination? thats evolution for you right there. I was talking about the fossilized dinosaur skin that had the same circle patterns as the one on the drawing. that does not show imagination, that shows a witness.

EC

is there really a fossilized dino skin? how does a fossil show the color?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

All you need is some bones, imagination or co-incidence.

imagination? thats evolution for you right there. I was talking about the fossilized dinosaur skin that had the same circle patterns as the one on the drawing. that does not show imagination, that shows a witness.

Imagination as in prehistoric men drawing boogiemonsters.
Are you able to actually PROVE this fossilised dinosaur skin exists?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well in order to get drawings of what dinosaur skin looked like, you kinda need a live dinosaur to do that.

Where are these accurate depictions of dinosaur skin that can only have been thought of it the person had seen a dinosaur? I see none with feathers.

and why would someone draw dinosuars and humans together on pottery and stones? thats just dumb if they were making it up.

I agree, its dumb. People do dumb things. The ica stones are frauds, it was dumb of the fraudsters to do it. Well, they did make a pretty peso off of it, so maybe they werent' that dumb.

I was talking about the fossilized dinosaur skin that had the same circle patterns as the one on the drawing.

Which drawing are we talking about, I am confused.

is there really a fossilized dino skin?

There's definitly fossilized skins and skin impressions, along with feather fossils and proto-feather fossils.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

How is that evidence for the co-existence of man and dinosaurs?

well in order to get drawings of what dinosaur skin looked like, you kinda need a live dinosaur to do that.

Nope. We have fossil impressions of dinosaur skin. There's some at the lab where I work. The color isn't there, but the impression of the skin sure is.

and why would someone draw dinosuars and humans together on pottery and stones? thats just dumb if they were making it up.

Because the doctor that they gave it to as a present got very excited and gave them money. The artists were very poor, and came up with more... and soon noticed that he paid a lot more for dinosaurs and humans.

In a rural area, where money means the difference between life and death, they simply created a nice little industry for themselves. It didn't matter if the gringos believed it was for real. What was important was that they paid good money and lots of it for "stones" that were "found".

And pottery, too, that had dinosaurs.

In any case, you can tell they're hoaxes, because they look like the cartoons of that day and not like dinosaurs REALLY looked.

Originally posted by riley
you able to actually PROVE this fossilised dinosaur skin exists?

Here's about 40 images of it. Check with your local museum that has dinosaur bones... they should also have some material:
images.google.com...

I think God may have made the dinosaurs first before he made Adam and Eve.

Perhaps the dinosaurs weren't allowed into the Garden of Eden and when Adam and Eve sinned perhaps God caused the dinosaurs to start to die out because he knew that us humans would soon start to populate the Earth?

Originally posted by ozmorphus
I think God may have made the dinosaurs first before he made Adam and Eve.

Perhaps the dinosaurs weren't allowed into the Garden of Eden and when Adam and Eve sinned perhaps God caused the dinosaurs to start to die out because he knew that us humans would soon start to populate the Earth?

that's the problem with accepting creationism, you have to start making excuses for an all-powerful and all-knowing being to fill in the gaps of the bible.

dinos and man could not have co-existed because there is 65 million years seperating the two

this is a good question, however, it is not true. apes and man desended from a common ancester, not eachother.

no the did not co-exist. incase you didn't know, there is 65 million years seperating us and them. this is backed up by c-14 and relative dating.

G-d put the dinosaurs on earth millions of years before man so that they would have time to die off and become oil. It's all part of G-d's grand plan because, without the dinosaurs, we wouldn't have oil and without the oil, we wouldn't have George W. Bush - see how a truly omnipotent being can plan far enough ahead to make sure that the Grand Plan works out the way G-d intended? Don't take my word for it, just ask Pat Robertson!

Today I visited the Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose TX. Although I wasn't there to investigate material for this discussion, I thought those here might be interested in what's there.

This park has some of (if not the) best dinosaur footprints in the world and examples of the footprints found here can also be seen in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Believe it or not, the footprints are left in their natural environment. That means you have to climb down a river bank to see them. It's well worth the effort and it's a little humbling to see how big these things were. Some of the footprints were obviously made by dinosaurs with claws on their feet. The claws on these things must have been like spears. The holes they left are big enough to put several fingers in.

Now for the answer to the question that's been asked here. Are there any human footprints with the dinosaur's footprints? I did see one example that might have been a human footprint along with the dinosaur footprints. It could have just as easily been a dinosaur dragging it's heel or an impression where only one toe sunk into the mud. Although the size was about right, there were no toe marks to distinguish these as human.

I got some great pictures of the dinosaur footprints, but looking through what was taken I can't see any of the human sized prints. If I can go back later this year I'll take my shoe off and put it into the print for a visual comparison. I dont' think it would convince anyone that it was a human footprint. It might make you question, but you'd never be for sure.

Sorry I didn't do a good job showing the scale of these footprints. This was just a "for fun" trip. I'll put a ruler in some next time. For now think of them this way. In the deep footprint at the bottom of this photo, one dino-toe was bigger than my whole foot. This photo also shows how a partial print could be mistaken for a human footprint. If you only had a print of one of the toes, it would look like a human footprint. It's about the right size.

(click for full size)


(click for full image)

EDIT: This park has 6 sites where you can easily see at least half a dozen footprints. (per site)

[edit on 21-3-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
im not sure if thsi response is going to be considered a direct response to the last post.

how come all the sites that you use are correct?
it seems to be that all the sites I refer to are wrong, according to you.
what makes KentHovind a liar?

why is it impossible for dinosaurs to have existed with man?

a lot of things were taught in the past as fact and are now proven wrong.
I think that is where the evolution theory is going. I think that it is a wrong.

let me ask you all something about Dr Hovind.
Why is it that when he debates professors and other "scientists", the people he debates never have a rebuttle that sounds convincing? howcome he always makes them look stupid? I only have 4 debates on tape, but all of them are won by Dr Hovind. he may not be right, but his opponents can never come up with an explanation as to why and how things are the way they are.
they never come up with a good explanation.

Hovind may be a liar to you all. but he certain doesnt look like one in front of a crowd, especially when he is debating someone on the subject of which they speak.

EC

It is imposible for dinos and man to co-exist because of a 65 million year gap you may have heard about. man has onley existed on earth for maby 1 to 2 million years, depending on what you define as man.please write back.