[gallo]

Quote by: navyrkh I'm interested to hear anyone's opinion on findings such as artifacts showing people with dinosaurs.

I'm not aware that there have been any such artifacts found. You would have to tell us about them. Without knowing more, however, I would have to say that any such artifacts are fake or incorrectly interpreted since dinosaurs, except for birds, died out about 65 million years ago.

Also, footprints of man next to dinos.

No such footprints have ever been found. Some creationists have been taken in by carvings made and sold to tourists during the depression. Most notably, Mr. Carl Baugh and Mr. Don Patton (Both have awarded themselves bogus Ph.D. degrees) tout the Burdick print as somehow being that of a giant. Any fool who has ever seen a human footprint can easily see that the Burdick print is a fake. Moreover, the claimed tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River all turned out to be dinosaur tracks. Not even Baugh continues to claim that a single one of his original "man tracks" is human. Instead, he now claims to find "man tracks" inside the tracks of dinosaurs. If you are gullible enough, you might fall for that. I've seen the tracks.

Wouldn't evolution be discredited if it could be proven that fully "evolved" man lived with "millions of years old" dinosaurs?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully "evolved" man'. But no matter, even an "incompletely evolved" man living with dinosaurs would discredit the theory of evolution.

It's interesting how we had ancient artifacts showing certain dinosaurs differently than what archeologist at the time thought they should look like only to discover later that they were correct.

I'm not sure what artifacts have to do with dinosaurs. How does a man made object show us anything about dinosaurs? Why are archaeologists studying dinosaurs? What does the study of human life and culture from the past have to do with dinosaurs?

Quote by: navyrkh A decent site to check out on what I'm randomly talking about with the whole man and dino co-existing would be Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca .

What a load! They lied to you and you believed it.

The petrified cowboy leg still in the boot is interesting. As far as I know, no one has discredited the ancient findings.

Is it actually necessary to debunk such an idea? Even if it were true, what does it show about dinosaurs or the age of humans?

Quote by: navyrkh If it could be proven that fully "evolved" man lived with "millions of years old" dinosaurs than [sic] the religion of evolution would be dead in the water.

Again, I'm not sure what a 'fully "evolved" human' is. Creationists don't even seem to be able to decide which hominid fossils are human and which are not. The same creationist often has a difficult time deciding. For example, in 1992 Paul S. Taylor declared that both Java Man and Peking Man were apes. In 1995 he claimed that Java Man was an ape while Peking Man had somehow become human. By 1996, both Java Man and Peking Man were human. He didn't indicate if they were "fully evolved" humans or not.

Similarly, Duane Gish claimed in 1979 that ER 1470 was human but in 1985 said that it was an ape. So, perhaps you can understand my confusion about what you might mean when you talk about "fully evolved" humans. I wasn't aware that there was a condition for any organism that made it "fully evolved."

Also, you seem to scorn religion by trying to reduce the science of biology to a matter of belief without evidence. Such is the nature of religion. I can assure you that biology is not my faith any more than physics or geology are.

Check out Interactive Bible Home Page www.bible.ca and view some of the discovered ancient artifacts depicting man and dino co-existing.

They aren't really what they are claimed to be. Guys like Baugh and Patton depend on the gullible faithful.

Explain how a human leg still inside of a cowboy boot could possibly become petrified.

Why? What does it have to do with dinosaurs or evolution?

Theories and nice ideas are fine, but evolution falls apart in the face of reality.

What reality is that? Wouldn't it be nice if you actually took a science course and made an effort to learn?

The problem is that many are being taught the religion of evolution and are trying to force the "evidence" to back up that belief.

Can you give me some examples? Are geology and physics also religions?

Hmmmm? So, Halofan48 you disregard evidence because it doesn't fit your "reasoning"? That's very open-minded of you...

I'm sure that isn't the reason that Halofan48 'disregards' your so called 'evidence'. I'm sure that he actually has some science education and isn't gullible enough to fall for such claims. How open minded of you to claim that evolution is a religion, and as such, tries to force the "evidence." Isn't that exactly what you are doing? Forcing invented evidence in the name of your religion of creationism?