Just like the 2 schism sites "Answers" in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, Apologetics Press show no shame of pumping out one despicable lie after another about dinosaurs by claiming that they lived with humans at one time as portrayed in science fiction.
Dinosaurs and humans together is science fiction. Yet, creationists like the ones from Apologetics Press have transform it into a religious dogma and say that it's all true out of blatant ignorance of complete absence of humans and dinosaur fossils together in the fossil record. When asks why is there no traces of humans and dinosaurs together in the fossil record, they simply tell you to just believe what they say and come up with the most stupidest of explanations that don't answer the question, but rather avoid them. Not being buried together is not going to answer the question to why are there no true recollections made of such things found in all forms of ancient, historical, Biblical, and archaeological sources. Creationists, however, claims there are by showing what they claim to be eyewitness accounts of people meeting up with live dinosaurs in form of dragon legends. What they actually promote are all only fabrications. Fabricated lies that are the result of creationists distorting and screwing around with historical, archaeological, Biblical, and ancient sources to fit with their perceptions of what ancient and Biblical literature, archeology and history should tell us about when it comes to dinosaurs and the age of the Earth. Here's an example of this.
In 2005, Creationists Eric Lyons and Bert Thompson made up this pathetic article entitled Dinosaurs and Humans-- Together? that makes a weak case for the Hollywood-style drivel by asking this question,
"Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived together?"
Because there's no evidence for such a scenario. That's why.
"No doubt one of the reasons is due to the fact that for many years, we have been inundated with information-on television, in books, in classrooms, in movies, in magazines, and on all sorts of paraphernalia-suggesting that dinosaurs and humans are separated by 60+ million years of geologic time. Thus, evolutionary scientists (and those who accept their timeline) have constructed a barrier that must be broken down in order to get people to consider the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans."
Truth cannot be broken down no matter how many lies get thrown at us by creationists who's so stupidly ignorant of all true records being completely absent of humans and dinosaur remains in and around one another that they have to resort to medieval folklore, Hollywood films, and science fiction to prove their losing case.
Here's another "reason" why no one's accepting their tripe (except those who are as just as blind and misguided as they are),
"A second reason why people are uneasy about the idea of dinosaurs and humans living contemporaneously on Earth is that in the twenty-first century, mankind is accustomed to thinking that almost all dinosaurs were enormous killing machines. Geologist John Clayton has suggested, for example: (1) 'It is ludicrous to suggest that man cohabited with the dinosaurs in an Alley Oop kind of world'; and (2) 'Man could not have lived in a world full of dinosaurs, so by the time God created Adam the dinosaurs were gone'."
An amusing answer, but not a logical one. It's obvious creationists are getting all of their stupid lies and pathetic nonsense from watching to many science fiction films that portray dinosaurs as such and incorporate them into their religious dogma. Here's the third "reason" who no one is accepting their tripe save those who are as just as blind and misguided as they are,
"People apparently seem to think that dinosaurs would have killed all of the humans by biting them in half with their super-sized teeth, or by hunting them down and cutting them open with five-inch long, sickle-like claws. People think that the large plant eaters would have crushed humans with their massive feet, or smashed them with their huge tails. Humans are just too small, dumb, and scrawny to have lived during the time of the dinosaurs. At least that seems to be the way evolutionary scientists, moviemakers, book writers, and magazine editors portray these 'terrible lizards.'"
They portray these "terrible lizards" as such for the purpose of entertaining people who go gaga over this stuff. In reality, no one knows for sure what lives did the dinosaurs had. But what we do know is that through the study of fossilized clues the dinosaurs left behind in the fossil record, we can safely say that the lifestyles of the dinosaurs were anything but what is portrayed in all sorts of Sci-fi paraphernalia. Their lifestyle would probably have matched that of animals of today; Dromaeosaurs behaving like wolves, T.rexes behaving like lions, Sauropods behaving like elephants, Hadrosaurs behaving like deer and elk, and lots more.
The next paragraph gives a lowdown of what kinds of dinosaurs are known along with just how ignorant the creationists are when it comes to the fossil record being completely void of human and dinosaur remains together,
"People in general seem to think of them as being almost invincible-animals that lived during a time in which man simply could not have survived. They would have been unapproachable, and certainly, untamable. Right? Just how is it that creationists can reasonably believe that dinosaurs and humans once lived on this Earth together at the same time?"
There's no reason to. It's just as easy as firmly believing that fairies, gnomes, and mermaids are real despite find no proof of it anywhere. It just come to show how incredibly blind and ignorant they really are to the complete absence of humans and dinosaurs remains in and around each other in the fossil record.
Creationists who embrace ignorance has no trouble making up all sorts of stories about humans taming dinosaurs despite the complete absence of dinosaurs found in and around human dwellings. No bridals, no saddles, no harnesses, nothing. Yet in their stubborn ignorance, creationists, in the next section entitled Extraordinary Existing Creatures, after giving the lowdown on how life is so busy at times that people, in their daily hustle and bustle, just couldn't take a moment to think outside the proverbial box, tries to make an empty point by stating,
"Consider the topic of dinosaurs. Rather than thinking critically about the possibility of humans and dinosaurs coexisting on Earth at one time in the past, most students are content to swallow everything a high school teacher or college professor tells them about the "wild world" of dinosaurs. In the classrooms of evolutionary scientists, thinking outside the "evolutionary box" (e.g., questioning whether it is logical to believe in the cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans) is not acceptable conduct."
Try thinking outside the factual box, guys. This is what it's all about - creationists making it as if it's all made up and that what science teachers and college professors are telling their students is all a lie, made up to indoctrinate them into believing a false story. That's what creationists insist for us to believe, yet they turn around and do the exact same thing they accuse science teachers and college professors of out of total, blind ignorance of the fossil, historical, biblical, and archaeological records being completely void of human and dinosaur co-existence.
Remember, creationists say, do, and are, without exception, everything they accuse non-young earthers, evolutionists, science teachers, college professors, and people like you and me of.
Then the 2 creationists tries to show off examples of 4 animals that live with humans today, the Komodo Dragon, the Imperial Elephant (actually the 2 creationists are confusing the Imperial Elephant, a Pleistocene creature which is now extinct, with the Asian Elephant, the only type of elephant man is able to tame.), the blue whale, and the orca (killer whale) in order to prove that even though the Komodo dragon and the orca are in fact dangerous animals and the elephant and the blue whale are in fact huge, man was able to live alongside, tamed, and/or hunted them for many years. In their warped reasoning, if humans can handle these 4 animals without difficulty, then why shouldn't dinosaurs be different than that?
"Yes, some dinosaurs like Brachiosaurus grew to be about four times larger than the largest elephants. Surely we would all agree, however, that if man can work, play, and go to battle alongside (or on top of!) elephants, it certainly is not absurd to think that humans did similar things with certain dinosaurs-especially when you consider that the average dinosaur (about the size of a large cow…. ) was reasonably smaller than the average elephant."
Well said out of gross ignorance of the fact dinosaurs come in all different sizes, not even the average was about the size of a cow. Not to mention the fact that that's also said out of ignorance of the absence of remains of dinosaurs with remnants armor plating, saddles, harnesses, and blankets on them in the fossil and archaeological records. Obviously creationists wanted to make it as if they're all the right size on average for man to handle, but they're not. No doubt this is all made up in attempt to figure how did Noah fit all dinosaurs into the ark without ever overcrowding the vessel which is completely impossible.
After going through describing these modern animals, the 2 creationists asks,
"How can a mere 150-pound man teach a 10,000-pound whale to jump hurdles, ring bells, and perform other tricks-without being harmed? The answer is found in the fact that God made man in His own image, and gave him the ability to have dominance over the lower creation."
Wrong! The real reason is because the man has years and years of training to do things like that professionally. That's how he can do that without risking injury and endangering health and state of the whale. He has to spend years of training, patience, and practice to learn the skills he needs to work with such animals and show to the animal that he can be loved and trusted. It can take years and years of training, skill, and tons of patience to learn how to handle animals and train them to do tricks properly. It's not a one night stance. No man can get an animal and expect it to respond to commands instantly the moment he lays his hands on the animal for the first time. He has to first win and animal's love and trust, and then work it from there. It takes skill, trust, patience, understanding, respect, and above all love to form a lasting bond between an animal and a man who are specially trained and skilled to perform tricks in front of a large crowd of delightful people. But the animal is not above attacking even a well experienced trainer when very lightly provoked (I.E. a male orca whale, Tilikum, attacking and drowning his female trainer Dawn Brancheau when he was distracted by her own pony tailed hair).
Creationists are making it as if to say that since man has dominion over animals, just as the Bible said so in Genesis 1:26-28, Psalms 8:4-9, and James 3:7, then he can do whatever he wants with them. In other words, treat them like dirt; enslave them; treat them as of they're throw away garbage; never mind the fact that animals has feelings and emotions like humans do, etc, etc. That's what creationists would like you to think. But it doesn't work that way.
Man seemed to have tamed "every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea" as The Apostle James puts it except animals that man is unable to control like maggots that burrow inside human bodies, dead and alive, and animals like sharks, orcas, and chimpanzees with highly aggressive, unpredictable behavior as well as animals that have lived and died long before the dawn of man. If young earth is true, we should find dinosaur, pre-Mesozoic, and early Cenozoic animal remains with bridals, harnesses, saddles on them, spears embedded in them, jewelry and tools made from them, stables, paddocks, and wagons built and made for them found anywhere on earth whether in and around human dwellings or away from them. But none of such things has ever been found.
Next is the section entitled Evidence from Dragon Legends, where the 2 creationists gives out false evidences of humans and dinosaurs co-existing by presenting fabrications— made up stories creationists invent by rewriting, distorting, and twisting the folkloric tales around to fit their perceptions of what dragon legends should be all about, starting with this trick statement,
"Most people likely are unaware that the word "dinosaur" was not coined until the 1840s. Thus, if these creatures lived alongside humans prior to that time (and the [sic] evidence indicates that they did….), they were not called dinosaurs. So what were they called? Dragons."
This can give one a false impression that dinosaurs were once allegedly called dragons before being renamed dinosaurs in 1841. That's what creationists insist you believe while being ignorant of the fact that dinosaurs and dragons are 2 separate creatures, one fictional, the other real. One has modern animal composites of snakes and lizards, birds and bats, and felines, the other doesn't. One breathes fire, have impenetrable scales, bat wings, woman's genitals, multiple heads, and poison venom, the other doesn't. One are creatures that are half feline, half snake with bird (or bat) wings and two (or four) limbs. The other are not. One has in many cases feathers all over their bodies, the other doesn't. The list goes on and on.
Creationists invent the a lie as an attempt to fit dinosaurs and dragons into their creation dogma and obtain ignorance of the real inspiration behind the dragon legends that only involve fossils, which the ancients had absolutely no idea of what they really were. So to help explain them, the ancients invent stories involving dragons, giants, and other forms of monsters and heroes who once live on earth long ago. During the days of the Roman Empire, the fossils were in many cases treated as sacred objects. They were unearthed and taken into temples where they were dedicated to the gods and goddesses the Romans worshiped such as Zeus, Hera, and Apollo. In North America, many fossils were used to tell stories of monsters that once roam the earth until the Great Spirit came and destroy them all to make room for his people to come to the land and settle there in safety. Finding fossils of pterosaurs and encountering live, giant Teratornis and condor birds may have given rise to the Legend of the Thunderbird who lives in the sky and at one time battle killer whales to save a tribe of natives from hunger. In Christian nations, some of the fossils unearthed there were treated as remains of giant humans who perished during the Flood or saints who have been martyred for their faith and were given honorable burials by the church as a result of their "religious" status.
As a matter of fact, dinosaur fossils weren't the only ones that became subject of legends and folklore. Most fossils that were the subject of folklore came from mammals dated to before and during the time of the Ice Age, such as the remains of mammoths and mastodons found in South America which was thought by the ancients to be human giants who long ago made war upon the gods and lost and the remains of Cave Bears found in the Carpathian Mountains in Switzerland inspired the legend of the winged dragon who lived in the mountains and guard vast amounts of gold. It was not until the 1700s' when people began to realize that these strange objects the ancients thought of as dragons, giants, and monsters turned out to be nothing more than remains of plants and animals that once lived on earth millions of years before the Dawn of Man.
Creationists, on the other hand, can only present scores of fabrications they claimed to be accounts told all over the world of people meeting up with live dinosaurs, such as the claim about Chinese tales about Emperor's chariots being occasionally pulled by dragons and Marco Polos account of him sighting "Lindworms" that can run much faster than a horse— told out of direct ignorance of the fact that the dragons, as told in full context in an ancient Buddhist literature known as The Chinese Classics, is said to have flown up in their air among the clouds and above the sea while pulling the chariot for the Emperor and are also said to have pulled the chariot for the gods as well. The creationists are also ignorant of the fact that the Lindworms in the writings of Marco Polo is said to have only 2 limbs. In his Book of Marvels, there is a painting made of the Lindworms he claims to have seen that don't look like dinosaurs at all. The Lindworms in the painting look like dragons with batwings, wolf heads, and tails with snake-like faces bearing dog like ears.
The next claim is one of the most laughable of all creationist claims. It's involve an epic tale of Beowulf and the claim
"The epic poem Beowulf describes a battle in Denmark between a man named Beowulf and a terrible monster called Grendel. Beowulf was a real person. He lived from A.D. 495 to 583, and was king of a group of people known as the Geatingas. Grendel was a bipedal creature that possessed large, powerful jaws, and had small, weak forearms. (Beowulf slew him, you may recall, by tearing off one of those arms.) As Bill Cooper inquired:
Is there a predatory animal from the fossil record known to us, who had two massive hindlegs and two comparatively puny forelimbs? There is indeed…. I doubt that the reader needs to be guided by me as to which particular species of predatory dinosaur the details of his physical description fit best (1995, pp. 159,160).
Could it be-Tyrannosaurus rex?! Why not? The description of Grendel, recorded sometime before the tenth century A.D. (over nine centuries before the relatively recent discovery of dinosaur fossils), more closely resembles a Tyrannosaurus rex than any animal alive today."
What is claimed here by Cooper is out of extreme stupidly and pathetic ignorance of the fact that Grendel was in fact an ogre who was a direct descendant of Cain, the first murderer mentioned in the Bible. The ogre had big arms and was protected by magic from Beowulf's sword strikes. Because of this, Beowulf had to engage in hand to hand combat to defeat the giant instead of using his sword. The battle ended when Beowulf used all of his strength to tear off one of the ogre's strong arms, leaving him to stagger back into his cave where he died from his wounds.
"If humans today can manipulate animals that are 100 times their own size (e.g., the elephant), that have a mouthful of 3-inch-long, dagger-like teeth (e.g., the killer whale), or that have claws that could be used to rip human beings apart (e.g., lions, tigers, and bears), why is it so difficult to believe that humans and dinosaurs once inhabited this Earth at the same time?"
Rather why is it so difficult for creationists accept reality and realized just how stupid and preposterous their nonsense really is? It's evident that the creationists manipulate stories like Beowulf for the purpose of making fools and dunces of themselves while promoting the 6,000 year lie.
Then they added,
"Admittedly, many human lives likely were lost to certain species of dinosaurs for various reasons. But, for thousands of years, people also have lost their lives to animals that still inhabit the Earth today (like sharks, tigers, lions, poisonous reptiles, bears, elephants, etc.). Although we probably will never know exactly which details of the countless number of dragon stories are fact or fantasy, the simple truth is that the huge lizards in them sound very much like some of the dinosaurs we know once existed."
All dragon stories are fantasy. All of them feature descriptions that resemble snakes such as coiling bodies, women's genitals, venomous breath, poisonous bite, dog-like ears, impenetrable scales, lust for gold, ability to create storms, wolf-like heads, bat or bird wings, either one, two, or multiple heads, and either 4,2 or no limbs at all. None has descriptions that fit dinosaurs. None are dinosaurs. And none of what creationists claim about them are true. Still, this doesn't stop the creationists from promoting more ignorance such as what is stated next,
"Ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and other such illustrations also have been found throughout the world that point to a time when dinosaurs and humans once roamed this Earth together. One cannot help but wonder, if they never did coexist (as evolutionists would have us believe), what logical explanation can be given for the existence of hundreds of dragon legends, and the thousands of artifacts that either describe or depict these creatures hundreds or thousands of years before modern man began learning about dinosaurs as a result of the fossil record?"
Simple. They're all fabrications, distortions, artifacts that has the letters H-O-A-X written all over them. None of the explain why are there no remnants of dinosaurs and humans in and around one another found in the fossil record and what creationists promote are all distorted versions of folkloric tales of dragons and monsters with descriptions that fit anything BUT dinosaurs.
Then in the next section of the article, the 2 creationists begin slamming Hugh Ross, one of the most prominent of old earth creationists, for ridiculing "the concept that the biblical creatures, behemoth and leviathan, were dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals." Ross has a right to ridicule the concept. These 2 monsters were neither dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals, nor were they hippopotamus and the crocodile, but creatures of Jewish folklore in which one resembles a raging bull ox and the other resembles a coiling fish with illuminating scales and a fiery hot breath. Both animals are said to be supernatural monsters created by God during the 5th and 6th days of Creation. Both lived each separately in the mountains as well as the Mediterranean Sea. Both is said to rise up and fight one another at the end of the world until God intervenes and kill them both. Then, He will use their flesh to provide food and comforts for His people.
Still creationists in all their ignorant glory goes on assuming that a man like Hugh Ross will have difficult time accepting the creationists' tripe about Behemoth and Leviathan being dinosaurs and dinosaur-like animals while the truth is that once people like Hugh Ross know about who Behemoth and Leviathan really were, then they should have no trouble rejecting the creationists' notions of the 2 animals being dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures. It is really the creationists themselves who are having a hard time trying to deal with the fact that these 2 beasts are in fact monsters of Jewish Folklore that bears no resemblance to dinosaurs and/or dinosaur-like creatures. Just because a creature is scary, monstrous, and either "the chief of the ways of God" or "king over all the children of pride" doesn't necessary mean it's a dinosaur.
The next paragraph gives out 2 reasons why do Ross rejects the notion of the 2 beasts being dinosaurs,
Two of the main reasons Ross gives for rejecting the dinosaur-like features of these creatures are: (1) "no creatures on Earth, alive or extinct, fit the literal descriptions;" and (2) "no dinosaur…ever breathed fire or smoke." According to Ross, such "facts" present a problem when Bible students understand these creatures as being dinosaurs.
It doesn't when it is understood clearly that both creatures are fact bull and fish monsters of Jewish folklore, not some dinosaurs Job is said to have allegedly seen. The next part of the article gives out 3 following questions:
"First, although admittedly no creature alive today fits the "literal descriptions" of leviathan and behemoth, how can Ross confidently assert that no extinct animal resembles the description of behemoth or leviathan?"
Answer: No dinosaur has mammalian genitals or belly buttons. Sauropods do not have chewing teeth. They're neither capable of chewing food like cattle nor have what it takes to live in the swamps like what early illustrations have depicted them to do. No dinosaur or their contemporaries had serpentine bodies and there's no known dinosaur that has adapted themselves to live in the water.
"How does Ross know the description of every creature that has lived on the Earth? How does he know what feats they were capable of performing?"
A trick question isn't it? No one's a know-it-all on every creature that lived on earth past and present, not even the creationists know everything about what they teach - no, they don't know what they're talking about here. They don't know what they're saying about dinosaurs. Period. They just cater the facts to their preconceived ideas and discard the inconvenient mountains of evidence that challenge these assumptions without doing any extensive research on them. And then go around and assume that despite having a short tail in comparison with a sauropod tail being huge and long, Ross still continues to believe that Behemoth was a hippopotamus. Obviously the creationists don't want anyone to know that the "tail" passage refers to the creature's erotic behavior, for that would definitely kill the whole concept of the behemoth being a sauropod dinosaur with a large chunky cedar tree-like tail and lose even the most youngest, most gullible followers to reality and science.
Although no vertebrae living and extinct has ever breathed fire, creationists in all of their imagination pretends that since animals like the bombardier beetle, electric eels, and fireflies can produce heat and light and the Komodo dragon can produce poison bacteria in its mouth, then there's reason to believe that some dinosaurs can and did breath fire or so they thought. There is no reason to believe in this fairy tale and the creationists know it! This is no doubt one of the most laughable of all young earth claims. Creationists have dredged up this fairy tale to fit dinosaurs, dragons, and other types of real and imaginary monsters into their dogma. There is no such thing as dinosaurs breathing fire and no such evidence for this has ever been found. It's all the imagination of the creationists like the late Henry Morris who likely became the first creationist to have ever imagined such a concept. By using all these modern animals with special features as inspirations and role models for his way of fitting dinosaurs into the Leviathan passage of Job 41, Morris uses his imagination and pretends there were dinosaurs like Parasaurolophus that has some sort of special glands inside their crests which help them to breath fire, put them in his dogma, and say it's all true according to the Leviathan passage while hiding the fact that he alone imagined up those glands in an elaborate way to make it as if the fire-breathing concept is real while it's not.
Creationists often accuse evolutionists of make-believing there was once a feathered dinosaur roaming the earth with a plumage of feathers covering much of its body which creationists claims to be "imaginary" and "non-existent." And yet they turn around and play make-believe of their own by pretending, for example, that there was once fire-breathing dinosaurs roaming the planet, using some sort of hot liquid and gaseous glands inside their bodies to help them produce fire, and then say it's all real while hiding from their gullible followers the fact that the fiery glands are all just pretend unlike the feathers (and evidence of them) found on many dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Meilong, Dilong, Beipaosaurus, and Velociraptor.
The last part of the paragraph assumes,
"Hugh Ross, it seems, has forgotten that all animals, including the dinosaurs, were designed and created by God on days five and six of Creation. If Jehovah wanted to create one or more dinosaurs that could expel fire, smoke, or some deadly chemical out of their mouths without harming themselves, He certainly could have done so."
He could have- but He didn't. Their claws, teeth, trumpeting crests, spikes, feathers, horns, body armor, boneheads, and plates was just enough to make dinosaurs unique in God's Creation. Hugh Ross hasn't forgotten that all animals were created and designed by God. What is really forgotten here is that Ross is in fact a creationist who believes that God created all things. But he rejected the young earther's views on dinosaurs and the age of the earth on grounds of irrefutable evidence pointing to the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that dinosaurs lived and died before the Dawn of Man. As a result of this, Ross became a target for slander and false accusations laid on him by young earth creationists who thinks using dinosaurs is the magic formula needed to make big names and big bucks for themselves in both the church and the media.
In conclusion of the segment the 2 creationists remarked,
"It seems fitting to ask Dr. Ross the same rhetorical question God asked Abraham long ago: 'Is anything too hard for the Lord?' (Genesis 18:14)."
Rather, is anything to easy for creationists to lie about dinosaurs and the Bible and put God to the test by stating that God's Word says that God created the dinosaurs at the same time as man (while in fact He didn't) and hopes that it's really what the Bible says while the Bible never in fact said anything like that at all?
"Who is Hugh Ross to say that 'no dinosaur…ever breathed fire'?"
Who is creationists to test God when they claimed that God created "fire-breathing dinosaurs" while He in fact didn't? Who is Ken Ham, Prisoner #06452-017, John Morris, Mark Looy, and all other creationists to test God when they claimed that God created dinosaurs alongside humans while the evidence shows us that He didn't? The next segment shows the best example of how creationists test God's integrity by distorting the Bible to fit in with the 6,000 year lie.
In the segment entitled Evidence From The Bible, the 2 creationists tries to make a case for Dinosaurs and the Bible by stating,
"Although evolutionists are quick to discount anything that the Bible has to say about the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, anyone who claims to be a Christian (and thus trusts the Bible to be God's revelation to man) must accept whatever information they find in the Bible to be accurate."
But not when creationists made up stories and shoehorn them into the Bible they distort to fit their beliefs they mustn't. The truth is that the Bible is entirely neutral when it comes to dinosaurs, the age of the Earth, let alone the universe, evolution, chemistry, prehistoric men, Ice Age, UFOs, life on other planets, space aliens, mastodon, mammoths, fossils, and everything else science has to offer. The Bible says nothing about what creationists claimed to have said to begin with. Still creationists wants to make it as if the Bible does says that dinosaurs and humans live at the same time by claiming,
"According to the Scriptures, the whole of God's earthly creation was brought into existence within six days. Exodus 20:11 states: 'For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day' (cf. also Exodus 31:17). The apostle John declared that ';all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made' (John 1:3). If God created the Earth, the heavens, the seas, and everything in them in six days, what does that omit? It omits absolutely nothing!"
Even evolution is not omitted from God's creative hands. When creationists claimed that when God created all things, he made them to be "very good." which creationists define the phrase as "perfect in their own eyes." But even when God created all things perfectly, He does reserve the right to change and modify His work over a period of time whenever He wish. Just because He made all things perfect and complete doesn't mean they will always stay the same. Just because an animal, human, and plant is fully formed doesn't mean they can't change. God perfectly made all things, even the Earth, to change over time. Whether it's a fast change or a slow change, it doesn't matter. Even though they still continue their constant denial of evolution being true, creationists like Ham and Morris are grudgingly slowly, but surely admitting that life does change over time through Natural Selection and everything doesn't stay the same all the time.
Still that doesn't stop creationists from churning out Biblical distortions to include dinosaurs among the animals God told Adam to give names to when He brought them to him in hopes of finding a help mate to suit him well. According to their distorted reasoning, creationists states that since all land animals were created the same day Adam and Eve were created, it means (to them) the dinosaurs must have lived at the same time as Adam and Eve along with all other forms of animal life past and present. But on the contrary, however, according to Ham and his crackpot claims, God didn't really created all of the animals on the 5th and 6th day of Creation, but only created less than 200 animals so that Adam will have enough time to name them all in one day without spending years and years naming over 9 million plus animals (including species) God must have forgotten to create when He made all those animals for Adam to name! Now how contradictory is that?
Another type of contradiction involves just how many animals went into the ark. According to the 2 creationists, all forms of animals went into the ark. But compare that with Ham's views of animal capacity that contradicts the notion of all animals, including dinosaurs, being inside the ark two by two. Here, Ham and other creationists like him claims that only one type of animals each went into the ark while all the rest perish in the Flood. In other words, Noah took only in Dalmatians and left all other dog breeds to die in the Flood; he took in only African elephants and left all other elephant types to die in the Flood; he took in Magyarosaurus and left all other sauropods types to die in the Flood; and the list goes on and on.
While all this contradictions going on, the 2 creationists add insult to injury by stating that other forms of creationists such as Day-Age, Gap, and Progressive creationists have tried to discredit the notion of dinosaurs and man living together, but they allegedly failed because in their eyes "…the premises upon which they were developed were false" or so the 2 young earthers would like for you to believe while being totally ignorant of the fossil record being completely void of human and dinosaur remains in and around each other. So who's premises is really false, guys?
The next paragraph starts whining about how unpopular it is to teach that dinosaurs and humans once co-existed, while ignoring high popularity of the scenario being brought on by Hollywood and science-fiction writers for entertainment. You can't say it's unpopular, while it's completely unavoidable to see man and dinosaurs together in so many fantasy and science fiction films, cartoons, books, comics, posters, toy sets and all other forms of paraphernalia. And yet creationists are making it as if it is a subject of laughs and persecution by claiming,
"Draw a human standing next to a dinosaur (except for cartoonish purposes), and prepare to be ridiculed. Draw a human riding a small dinosaur, and you likely will be labeled eccentric."
If it's the case, then even James Gurney, the famous author and illustrator of the fantasy series Dinotopia, would have been a subject of mockery and ridicule instead of building a massive fan base of people who are captivated by his enthralling depictions of a fictional island world where humans and dinosaurs live harmoniously together as one.
"Few people seem to care that ancient art depicts Indians riding these creatures, or that certain ancient Chinese writings mention dinosaur-like creatures pulling the chariots of Chinese rulers."
And those few people who cared about them are the creationists who distort those supposed ancient art and writings by either painting the images themselves or ripping them out of context and change them around to fit in with their faulty beliefs. When put in full context, you'll find that what is depicted in art and writings is nothing of what creationists claim it depicts.
"Even many "Bible believers" seem to dismiss the historical and biblical evidence of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time and within close proximity to each other."
That's because the biblical and historical evidence for humans and dinosaurs living at the same time all have the letters H-O-A-X written all over them. None of the false evidences explain why are there no traces of human and dinosaur remains together in the fossil record even if they are what creationists claim them to be.
"But draw a picture of a man riding on the back of a 20,000-pound elephant, and no one has a problem with it. Write an article about the woman you saw at Sea World riding on the back of an 8,000 pound killer whale, or about how she stuck her head inside the whale's massive mouth, and everyone understands these stories as being acceptable observations of reality. Tell a friend about the man at the circus who has tamed lions, tigers, and bears, and that is nothing but old news. Just refrain from telling people about the evidence for man's coexistence with dinosaurs, because 'that is absurd'-or so we are told."
It's all absurd. Otherwise we would have seen remnants of dinosaurs having saddles, harnesses, blankets, and even man-made armor platings on them. But none are found. The evidence for people taming dinosaurs (except birds) are all non-existent. That's is real answer to the very same question the creationists kept asking for the 3rd time in the next paragraph,
"If man can tame many types of dangerous and ferocious animals that live on Earth today, why is it so difficult to think of man being capable of surviving alongside dinosaurs?"
There's nothing difficult to think of that when we see all sorts of science fiction paraphernalia depicting humans surviving alongside dinosaurs permeating about. Such scenario is something no one past and present has ever seen, nor will they ever see. Otherwise we would have seen dinosaur fossils with embedded spears, dinosaur bones made into jewelry, dinosaur skins made into clothing, houses, rugs, and other forms of home décor. But none are found.
The 2 creationists then gives out a big spiel about how ancient man have accomplish many feats of building landmarks, mining minerals, making tools, and telling time in an effort to make a strawman case for our early ancestors of man being not as ignorant and stupid as what evolutionists alleged to have portrayed our early ancestors as. But that makes no difference whatsoever since primitive people are just as intelligent as any modern man today unlike what is portrayed in some films. Our earliest ancestors such as Australopithecus and Cro-Magnon man have accomplished many feats that paved the way for man to spread, colonize, and eventually take over the world such as making tools to help them hunt animals, make beautiful art for religious themes, make clothing to protect themselves from the cold, learn how to harness fire (just after they discovered it), and much more. What they never accomplished is the ability to survive alongside dinosaurs and have dominion over them- they never have to. The dinosaurs were long dead by the time the first humans appeared on Earth.
Now the last segment entitled Dinosaurs and Humans - Where's the Fossil Evidence for their Coexistence? (Answer: Nowhere.), implies that the creationists are aware of the fact that there's no evidence for any human remains found together alongside dinosaur remains. So they have to wonder,
"But if dinosaurs and humans did once live as contemporaries on Earth, why is it that human fossils have not been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils? If they lived together and died together, shouldn't there be evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?"
No, absolutely not. There's none found anywhere on earth that will support their idiocy. So what do the creationists do about it? Simple. Make everything up. Search desperately for something that will give them a clue to help confirm their folly. If you can't find it, them make, create, distort, and fabricate everything up from scratch. This is what the creationists have done over the years and some of it is being shown here in the last part of the big article as well shall see here.
In the first attempt to answer the question, the 2 creationists began pondering,
"Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Furthermore, various ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth. Why, then, at first glance, does the fossil record seem not to corroborate this information?"
First off the Biblical record is highly useless to determined whether humans lived alongside dinosaurs or not because the record is fully neutral on such issues as dinosaurs and proves nothing of what creationists claimed about them. Secondly, every alleged various ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references all have "fabrications" and "hoax" written all over them; all done entirely by creationists to make names of themselves and gain fame and fortune, and a cult following.
So to "explain away" the lack of evidence in the fossil record, the 2 creationists states,
"First, fossils are rare. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place."
But amber pose a major problem for creationists who still insist that all fossils have to be made by a quick burial. Amber is one of the many cases of fossils formed by a real slow process. None has to require fast burial to become what they are today.
The 2 creationists gives out an example of how when the pioneers where traveling in the Old West, they have to deal with about 100 million bison and how they have to shoot as many bison as they can to clear the way for trains to pass through. Other factors behind the huge drop in populations is the deprivation of Native American food supply as part of their efforts to drive the Native Americans off their land and commercial hunting for their hide. By the time the 1800's ended, the bison population was lowered down to 500 before Congress came and passed laws to protect the bison from extinction. Today, the bison population is making an excellent recovery with an estimate population currently to about 350,000 roaming much of the West including areas in and around Yellowstone National Park. But what does that have to do with lack of human remains in the fossil record? According to the creationists, the answer to..
"What happened to all of their remains? We do not see them on the prairies today. Why?"
"Because their bones and flesh were scavenged by worms, birds, insects, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by bacteria, fungi, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains were gone. Even oxygen plays a part in breaking down the chemicals that make up the living body."
So in other words, the reason why no humans are found alongside dinosaurs in the fossil record is that most of their remains have rotted away. Never mind the fact that it doesn't explain why do we find no animals of modern types alongside dinosaurs in the fossil record. If what the 2 creationists claims to be the case, then every bodily remains of plant, animals, and people, large and small, living and extinct, would all experience the exact same thing, no matter how big and thick their bones are. It doesn't really explain why are remains of modern animals, including modern elephants and rabbits, found exclusively only in the Pleistocene-Holocene stratas and remains of Brachiosaurus, Dilong, Meilong, Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Compsognathus, and Thescelosaurus found exclusively in the Jurassic-Cretaceous strata.
Having bodies of plants, animals, and people rot away is one way creationists explain why are there no human remains found alongside dinosaur remains. Another way is done out of ignorance of the many fully complete dinosaur skeletons that were discovered over the years. The second explanation claims that every dinosaur genera discovered over the years are only made up of one single bone. Never mind the many scores of fossil remains of dinosaurs that are 70-100% complete such as "Leonardo" the fully complete Brachylophosaurus and "Dakota," a hadrosaurid with fossilized skin, tendons, and muscle. It seems, the 2 creationists would rather avoid the complete specimens or dismiss them as "Flood victims" because they knew the complete fossils would kill their single specimen fallacy and the only thing they could do is remain in denial and move on.
The third explanation is the fallacy of not having enough hominids to study. Creationists only assume that anthropologists only have just enough hominids to fill up a coffin or a pool table and have great yearnings to find more, while being greatly ignorant of the fact that once upon a time, there were a few fossils to fill a coffin or a pool table, now there are thousands of hominid fossils discovered in recent years that would make the storage of them inside coffins and on pool tables completely impossible.
The 4th way of explaining the lack of humans alongside dinosaurs is the notion of humans and animals living separately from each other. But that doesn't stop them from interacting with each other just as the humans did when they invade Mauritius, the island of the dodos, and introduce predators to the island that brought the dodos to extinction. Before then, the dodos lived on the island without fear of predators because there were no predators to bother them, hence the reason why they, over the years, lost their ability to fly. When the humans came with their dogs cats, rats, and pigs, the dodo, unable to cope with predator introduction, sadly went out the door.
Even when humans, dodos, and the now extinct Pyrenean Ibex did in fact lived at the same time in separate locations while no remains of them are found together, this still doesn't explain why is there no modern elephant remains found alongside Dimetrodon remains, why is there no dolphin remains found alongside Tylosaurus remains, and why no blue whale remains are found alongside trilobite remains in the fossil record.
Just claiming that all those "billions of dead things," living and extinct, lived separately at the same time all over the earth is not going to have logical results. If all animals, plants, and people, past and present, live at the same time, the world would be a high, grossly, over-crowded place. No animal, person, and plant would each live in separate locations without getting themselves trampled, pushed around, or eaten within one tenth of an inch of each other. So "because they've lived separately" explanation just won't work.
So what do the 2 creationists do now? Make imaginary assumptions and cling to a false and foolish hope that perhaps somewhere, somehow there are evidence of human and dinosaur remains together that is yet to be found out there in some remote areas of the world whether they are found in mines, cliffs, or road cuttings. Perhaps there were once evidence of such things, but got destroyed by miners at a quarry who used dynamite to blast away at the rock to get at the minerals they need such as coal (Coal miners would've never found all those 33+ Iguanodon fossils if they ever had such an attitude like that), or were discovered by scientists who decided to dismiss them as anomalies and not report on them on grounds of evolution being true. After all, in their assumptions, since scientists can confuse a dolphin fin (Try dolphin rib, guys!) for a human rib (Actually, it was never identified a hominid to begin with) and a pig's tooth for a human tooth, then perhaps similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils— IF they can FIND them in the exact same rock strata!
All I can say to these 2 creationists is "Dream on!" In order to find evidence for human and dinosaur co-existence, one has to find humans and dinosaur remains together in the exact same rock strata or in all rock stratas that confirms the notion of dinosaurs and humans together to be true. But, that's not what we found in the fossil record. We found none of what the 2 creationists have dredged up in the fossil record. Instead, we found evidence of each of these 2 groups living separately in different time periods with a massive gap between the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary (where the last non-avian dinosaurs died out) and the Late Pliocene boundary (where the first hominids appeared). There's no way can humans and dinosaurs be found together because of that huge gap that spans 65 MYA to 4 MYA.
This is an example of creationists clinging to false hopes and pipe dreams that someday, somehow, a stroke of luck would turn in their favor that will confirm what they've been trying to tell others all along creationists make-believe that perhaps there was evidence of humans and dinosaurs together. But chances of finding such evidence is nil despite the 2 creationists' assumption that perhaps..
"If they [Evolutionary scientists and paleontologists] did happen upon human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same strata, is it not possible that they would think to themselves, 'Oh, these human fossils are an anomaly; they cannot have actually existed in this time period because evolution is true'?"
No. Instead they will waste no time in unearthing and publishing their findings in peer reviews and spread the news all over the world about the ground breaking discovery of humans and dinosaurs together if what creationists claims to be the case. But not one trace of this has ever been found (One so-called discovery is actually a fake fossil made as part of a April Fools joke)!
Despite all this, creationists keeps right on with their denial and claims,
"If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the 'anomaly.'"
If the anomaly was there alongside the dinosaur fossil.
"Because (from an evolutionary perspective) human fossils 'shouldn't be where they are,' they might very well not get reported as being where they are!"
Really? Is that why the so-called human fossils got left behind and forgotten when the dinosaur remains were unearthed? Are the remains still there? If so, where? Surely the so-called "anomalies" would have been unearthed along with dinosaur remains, get taken to the museum for study, and get published in peer review journals. If they are left behind, then where did the scientists find the "anomalies", which eventually got left behind, at in all fossil areas such as the Morrison Formation and the Yixian Formation? And more importantly, why is there no private and public recollections made of finding such anomalies alongside dinosaurs? When a fossil is discovered, it gets recorded and put into scientific journals. Why don't it include "anomalies" in the journals? Why is there no records of any kind made of such findings? If the miners bomb the area to get at the minerals they needed, surely some of the miners could have gathered up small fragments of human and dinosaur remains, take them home, and ponder on what they were. If they did found such "anomalies," why are there no recollections made of any kind by the miners who allegedly discovered them? Surely they couldn't get left behind and forgotten by all those miners around who became struck with curiosity over them and want to take them home and use them as anything from good luck charms to door posts.
If recollections of these anomalies of any kind have not been made at all, then chances are, it's not that they are ignored or have been forgotten, it's just that the human remains, supposedly found alongside dinosaur remains, are all nothing more than just fictitious anomalies that are the figments of the 2 creationists' imagination.
The next paragraph deals with the notion that claims not only did humans lived alongside dinosaurs, but large mammals as well. Here, the 2 creationists tries to debunk the notion of only small, tiny, primitive mammals lived alongside dinosaurs by claiming,
"But therein lies the problem. A significant discovery, reported in the January 13, 2005 issue of Nature, has challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding the cohabitation of dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press noted:
Villagers digging in China's rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur (Verrengia, 2005).
Not only is there substantial proof of large mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but now we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! Scientists discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One (Repenomamus giganticus) was 50% larger than mammals previously considered to be living alongside dinosaurs. The other, Repenomamus robustus, was fully intact-and had a dinosaur in its stomach"
But does the 2 creationists realized that these large mammals are in fact Triconodonts, leftovers from the Triassic age, which are nothing like the mammals of the Cenozoic Era, including today's mammals, that survive in the remote areas of China while all other mammals maintain their small size all over the earth? Apparently not. Although this discovery does dispel the notion of all Mesozoic mammals being rodent size creatures, this recent discovery is doing nothing to dispel the truthful notion about men, elephants, lions, and giraffes and all other Cenozoic mammals never being around when dinosaurs were alive and living on Earth millions of years ago.
Now we get to the last part of the article where the 2 creationists clearly admits,
"It may be that dinosaur and human fossils will never be found together."
But still engrossed in ignorance, still maintaining their denials, the 2 creationists claims,
"But, regardless of whether they are or not, the evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs at one time in the past is undeniable to the [sic] unbiased truth seeker."
Still, that doesn't explain why are human remains not found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record. Over the years, creationists present to the world a whole gob of evidences of what they claimed to be proofs that humans and dinosaurs did co-exist at one time, but as it turns out, every one of them presented as evidence for the Hollywood fallacy all turned out to be nothing more than frauds, fakes, and hoaxes made up to gain publicity. Such examples include as stated by the 2 creationists,
Human footprints in coal veins that are allegedly 250 million years old,.."
"…human artifacts buried in limestone dated at 135 million years old,.."
Discarded items dated a few centuries old that was tossed away and covered with dissolved sediment that hardened into a concretion around it.
"..clay figurines of dinosaurs from an ancient civilization in Mexico,.."
ancient dinosaur petroglyphs,
and much, much more, all point to a conclusion that evolutionists will not accept-…
..on grounds that there is not a single trace of evidence supporting such a conclusion that claims dinosaurs and humans once living together at one time despite creationists and other forms of wishful thinkers' constant claiming that the scenario did occur at one time.
And this conclusion to this post I will make is this: No distorted evidence, fabrications, or faulty explanations creationists give out, no matter how silly, preposterous, or stupid they are, could ever explain why is there not a single trace of valid evidence for human and dinosaur co-existence found anywhere in all of fossil, historical, archaeological, and Biblical records.