CreateDebate


Debate Info

60
122
yes no
Debate Score:182
Arguments:103
Total Votes:213
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (46)
 
 no (57)

Debate Creator

jtopolnak(158) pic



Man and Dinosours have always lived together.

The evolutionism myth is used to promote the erroneous belief that humans and dinosaurs lived millions of years apart from each other. Children and adults are indoctrinated with this 'belief' starting from early childhood with books that teach it.  It's reinforced in the public school system, the media and the entertainment industry.  Recent examples include the highly misleading TV documentary called Walking with Dinosaurs that aired on the Discovery Channel, and the History Channel's The Quest for Dinosaurs  program. 

yes

Side Score: 60
VS.

no

Side Score: 122
4 points

Seeing as how dinosaurs still live to this day, I'd say so!

Side: yes
5 points

Yeah, we call them birds and they make nice pets.

However if you're talking the bulk of movie dinosaurs, then no. Regrettably (?) they are and have been extinct for tens of millions of years. It's especially a shame we can't resurrect them through cloning, but DNA is just not durable enough.

Side: yes
3 points

Well, some people consider alligators, tortoises, and the like dinosaurs. But not the kind of dinosaurs you so desperately want to have been alive while there were humans.

Side: depends what you consider a dinosaur
2 points

there are loads of reptiles and birds etc that were around during the time of the dinosaurs, so in essence, they are dinosaurs. and in a way so are we because we're related. something had to exist before we exist

Side: yes
Arrgh(13) Disputed
1 point

I believe that you don't understand exactly what a dinosaur was. A dinosaur was a specific type of reptile with specific traits. Crocodiles are reptiles and so are turtles, but you wouldn't say that a turtle is a crocodile, would you? Birds were not around during the time of the dinosaurs either. I'm aware of the theory that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, but that means that they WERE dinosaurs, not that they are. They aren't dinosaurs anymore than us humans are small rodent-like animals that hung out in trees. No, we are not dinosaurs at all. Our evolutionary lines split long before the first true dinosaur or mammal lived. I would recommend you educate yourself on these things before you comment. I suggest that because you seemed to put a modicum of thought into your "argument" and maybe you'll learn something.

Side: No
2 points

Well it depends on how technical you want to get. Technically they are here with is in a different dimension. If you believe in the very probable existence of parallel universes that is.

Side: yes
1 point

History channel had a good peice on Mokele-mbembe which natives have seen in the congo the area is the size of Arkansas. They have recovered footprints but because it lives mostly underwater it is hard to find.

Supporting Evidence: Living Dinosaur (www.mokelembembe.com)
Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
1 point

History channel had a good peice on Mokele-mbembe which natives have seen in the congo the area is the size of Arkansas. They have recovered footprints but because it lives mostly underwater it is hard to find.

Do you just believe everything you read without thinking? A creature the size of Arkansas would occupy about 1/14th of the entire Congo. The footprints would be over ten miles across. There wouldn't be enough food in the local food chain to support it, and it would collapse in on itself because skeletons have size limits due to the structural integrity of calcium carbonate.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

If you even looked into what you are saying this dinosaur is small and the natives have say they have seen it. The Congo is so remote and so dense with vegetation that there would be plenty of food.

Side: yes
1 point

i mean.. look at lizards & birds.. ..... so the same thing as a dinosaur.

Side: yes
protazoa(427) Disputed
3 points

modern lizards and birds EVOLVED from dinosaurs

that is not to say that they are the same

for instance, mankind evolved from apes. We are, however, two distinct species of primates, just as lizards and dinosaurs are distinct categories of reptiles.

Also, nobody seems to notice that the debate states that the two "always" lived together. First, the universe is several billion years old, dinosaurs arose about 160 million years ago, and mankind arose around 3 million years ago. So, even if modern lizards and birds are to be considered dinosaurs, there is an interval of several billion years where neither exists, and a gap of around 160 million years where dinosaurs existed, not humans.

No matter how you interpret "dinosaurs"- as including current species or not- they did not always exist with humans.

Side: No
1 point

The word dinosaur was not even created until about 1840 prior to that they where referred to as Behemoths, Dragons and Tannins. Dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How do you explain soft tissue in a TRex that was found in Montana still with hemoglobin and flexible bones? Scientist are baffled because there is no way that it could last for 65 millions years as the great lie is continued to be told.

What about Marco Polo in 1290 ad when he went to china and wrote in his journal which is still in existence today he talked about dragons 10 paces long and how the Emperor was training them to cary his chariot

Or what about ancient Egyptian drawings of dinosaurs of Brontosaurus? Or how about the Inca stones which they carved onto rocks and places next to them when they died? There are literally thousands of drawings and written documents of only in the past 800 years where they describe killing the dragons and behemoths that live among us. In the book of JOB he describes a Behemoth Job 40:15-24

It's tail is that of like a tall cedar.

http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3806

About discovery in Montana there have been several dinosaurs that have stayed preserved. I find it funny what this one Scientist quote:"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.

Oh really all the way up to now this was in 2005 better go back to the drawing board and wrap their brainwashed heads around this one. It's because they never lived millions and millions of years ago. God created them on the fifth day with man. Only about 6 thousand years ago. If Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago then how is there so much evidence by ancient civilization that point otherwise?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Side: yes
1 point

Marco Polo was describing a crocodile.

Side: no
1 point

I have left enough evidence of Man and Dinosaur have always lived together and so I will rest on this. I know some of you are saying thank you. But i understand how this is hard for some people to digest and some of you with very angry responses and it is because of this passage that is true and hits every human on the planet to the core and on this subject as well why it angers a lot of you.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

I wish the best for all of you i like all of you for and against, good debating on this.

Side: yes
Canin88(110) Disputed
1 point

"Man and Dinosaur have always lived together"

Even now? I beg to differ...

Side: no
1 point

Yes my classmates is a homo erectus.He goes to school in a flinstones car,and on bring your pet day he bought his pet dinosaur rex.His pet almost ate the entire class!

Side: yes
0 points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peyDbPqBY2w

I have referenced inca stones and Paluxoy riverbead. But there are literally thousands of ancient drawings of dinos all over the world on pottery, ceptors, clay models dated back 1,000 BC. millions of years ago I dont think so.

Utube quick video of ancient picuters of dinos man has
Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

There are no fossils of the dinosaurs you are thinking of dated younger than tens of millions of years old. The drawings must therefore be due to human imagination.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
0 points

That is so laughable so I guess they were able to exactly draw and figure out what they look like do to pure imagination? Are you listening to yourself? They must have had esp or something to have perfectly drawn a triceratops and a brontosaurs or maybe aliens came down and told them what to draw. And yes they have pulled hundreds of fossils from central Peru which is in the area of these stones. Here's a link to show you that. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/dinosaur-footprints-fossils-found-in-central-peru_100153132.html

Side: yes
Pessimist(182) Disputed
1 point

it just shows how absurd this is when you get "proof" from a youtube video from www.bible.ca

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

it's not absurd i just used this one because is pretty good. The Inca stones are a real thing and are reference in over 1,000 archaeological journals as a real thing.

Side: yes
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

You know I find it quite funny that I extensively refuted this last time you said it in another debate, and you had no response. But here you are repeating the same nonsense as if nothing happened.

Repeating the same thing over and over again, does not make it true no matter how badly you wish it were.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

I ask the same question because the response is so stupid like one of them stated it must of been their imagination. I like to hit the point of the other theory i may sound repetitive because it drives a point that makes people get out of what they think their comfort zone is or what they think they know. Then I pop up and show credible things that must have an obvious answer but it rocks peoples world when they are confronted with something that makes them think otherwise.

Side: yes
0 points

I want to reiterate the stones found Inca stones are their burial Stones many of the stones where found next to the bones in the graves of the Incas at the time of excavation. Over 11,000 stones kinda hard for that to be a hoax, doubters. Here's a video kinda long but he was there doing it and shows the actual dig and the stones next to the bones. He goes on and shows many others with more actual evidence that this is true.

Here's more proof. Try to say this guy is not telling truth your fooling yourself.
Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
3 points

Living species leave a footprint that is indicative of their existence even if we never capture a live specimen. For example, we don't expect bigfoot to be real because a fossil record leading up to him doesn't seem to exist. Likewise, the fossils of dinosaurs that you are thinking about end at around the time of their extinction, around 60 million years ago. If dinosaurs still lived, we should expect to find their bones.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
0 points

We can go all day about the hypocrisies of dating. Have you seen the so called dated 75 to 100 million old rock that they found a iron tool in the middle of it? That is there you can't deny it. If i take heat and pressure I can make a rock really quick and put it up against radio isotope if i never told you where the rock came from the test would come back millions of years . There volcanoes that make entire islands with rock using the same technique and they date the same. Just show me something Else that you can prove. Oldest tree or oldest living reef the great Barrier reef only said to be about 4,800 years old. If the earth in it's present form is millions of years old why not an older reef or an older tree? Bottom line you still don't have an answer for the Inca stones. I have been to the La Brea tar pits in LA there is a huge pit of bones the pit starts at the surface and goes down hundreds of feet. Looking at those bones in the pit only several feet from the surface and they are supposed to be millions of years old? I don't think so. Also the radio isotopes of dating don't actually date the bones they date the rock around it and even that test can be fooled i can go and add the elements and make a rock and the test would come back and say that rock is millions of years old. We did the radio isotope test in college and it's very flawed. Look for yourself on how they date bones. They don't I can tell you for certain the bones I looked at La Brae tar pits in LA where not millions of years old. That's another way they GUESS the age is by how deep they are another flawed way to date. So check the facts you are taking the secular view without even digging deeper to find the truth. Bottom line if you don't believe in creation then it's only logical that a non-believer would say that something took millions of years to make it's easier to discredit and make those assumptions when you don't believe that God created the galaxies. So either God created you or evolution Big Bang it rained for millions of years on rock and created a biological soup which from that humans came from.

Side: yes
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
2 points

You seem to be striving very desperately for the faintest glimpse of hope in absurd mysteries; of which are specific incidents proving nothing.

-

Science is the refined practice of quantitative data interpreited into trends. Those trends are built as more data is collected. Any "discovery" not quantified statistically and evaluated to respective trends is null. To make claims as extreme as "God did it, see look!" at such a premature state of scientific investigation only furthers the validation of my claim of the process of your approach to this matter.

-

Extreme claims necessitate extreme evidence.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

no not really. I think theirs a lot to science that is misleading. Actually there has been more misleading about secular science. Ever heard of Nebraska man what about the fake ape man that they said Science has proved and Time magazine put on the cover. Or even the 1912 ape man. All said that according to your quantitative data only all to be a hoax. I'm no desperate I'm actually having fun with it because it's amazing how rattled you and other people get when you see things that are curious and can't be explained. A lot the evidence I offer is actually makes people have to answer a question and it hits deep to your core which I think scares some people that maybe. Not so absurd if you give it some thought.

What evidence is their of the other? They still haven't proved otherwise.

Side: yes
4 points

The oldest human bones are only about 3 million years old. The Dino's died out about 65 million years ago.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

once again they don't date the actual bones they date is using the rock around it. Which even then the rocks aren't that old the Idaho Clay doll in Idaho that they found in a rock supposed to be 320 million years old. The hand tool found in London Texas Scientist dated the rock with Isotopes thought to be 75-100 million years old only to find a hand tool in it so the whole dating thing something has got to be wrong. But when their wrong on discoveries like this they don't even think about discredit of their techniques used.These are only a few out of hundreds of discoveries like this. This would mean that they would have to re-write everything if they even gave credit to it. Follow the tax money there not going to buck that Juggernaut. Also do you know how many times they have re dated something because from 100 millions years to 1 million years a lot. Well gee thanks how is it they where off by 100 million years? It's because the dating is BS.

Side: yes
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
4 points

once again they don't date the actual bones they date is using the rock around it.

This is incorrect. You don't seem to have any clue what you're talking about. Strangely enough carbon dating, requires that there actually be some carbon in what they are dating. since all life-forms on earth are carbon-based lifeforms their remains (yes, their bones) contain trace amounts of carbon which they can age using known half-life of carbon isotopes. Fossils that have been completely replaced by minerals cannot be dated using this technique and so other techniques are used. Dirt as far as modern science knows is ageless. Dirt my comprise a layer of a specific period in time, but the dirt itself pre-exists that period.

The only thing the dirt around a fossil tells us is in what epoch the creature lived based on other fossils found in the same geologic layer.

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

... oh my god, what the hell kind of sources do you use for this bs? Like literally, do you only read Christian Newletters and watch Fox News? link

Carbon dating is incredibly accurate, very simple so there is almost no room for mistake, and yes, it works on bones.

Side: depends what you consider a dinosaur
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Please provide some evidence that they have actually recovered 3 million year old human bones. I have done a lot of research on this and i have never heard of that.

Side: yes
nicknamechan(10) Disputed
1 point

But according to Darwin's theory of natural selection, it states that Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. It states that human evolve from monkey where monkey fossil is found at enocene period, 55million years ago, the monkey are evolve from other species which means DNA of humans always lived together with dinosours

Side: yes
3 points

Heck no there hasnt been enough evidence to even back up this theory. And using the texas example as evidence will weaken the opinion that agrees with this ridiculous theory. The so called human foot print at texas with a dinosoaurs foot print is actually another dinosoars footprint not human.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Without me having to type all of this in I'm adding a video that perfectly explains the evidence of the Inca stones and also Dino blood found and exhumed the reference of the Scientist and report is there so if you think this is a hoax you can look at the article yourself. Proof Dino lived with us. Millions of years ago. LMAO It's funny how in there they mentioned the Evol Docs only wanted to take the ones they new where copies, but even then they were copied from the originals.

simply explained the Incas and data clips to back article
Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

If you bothered to read the sources of your absurd claims you'd know that dinosaur blood has never been recovered. The research instead showed a means of softening fossilised tissues and that fossilised red-cells existed, not blood.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Heres a link a Scientist who was there. Also wanted to note if you scroll half way down they found tools in limestone that they thought to be millions of years old. The theory and scientific data of the metal also adds to the scientific study that the atmosphere was different back then a vapor barrier that compressed air much like a hypo Barack chamber they can tell this by natual science and also by the metal. They have discovered many artifacts from people in rock they say are millions of years old. Also the Idaho clay doll found they drilled into a rock in Idaho US they believed to be 320 million years old and they found in the middle of it a clay doll. I guess Barbie had ancestor 320 millions ago. Also note the giant human femur bone found an proven to be a giant human femur bone people live long and big back then not being exposed to harmful rays and also living on a planet with twice the oxygen.

[http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm]

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Most of your sources are out of context snippets from scientific journals that became distorted to fit a young earth creationist agenda. Radiometric dating is a proven technology and if you took the time to learn about from proper science textbooks you would see that it provides very accurate measurements when used correctly. Reading only the parts where scientists were determining the proper methodology to avoid error gives a wrong perspective.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3806

Marco Polo referring to Dragons back then that's what dinosaurs where called or behemoths. Heres another interesting article from Nat Geo I think this is non Christian enough for you. Read this and see what the Scientist. It has rocked their whole theory they still don't have an answer for this. The TRex bones where still flexible and there was still soft tissue in the bones and still hemoglobin. How could that last 70 Millions years? Because there not 70 million years old or even close.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html

Side: yes
1 point

Since your "evidence" (which wouldn't have necessarily been evidence for your argument and was already shown false by the time you posted it) is wrong, have you changed your position?

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/new.research.challenges.notion.dinosaur. soft.tissues.still.survive

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Not enough evidence just look at my last post I have put up cave carving sand man made dinosuars out of stone from all over the world from time periods of 500 tp 5000 years ago.

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Side: yes

While the descendants of dinosaurs now live with man, we have not always lived together.

Side: No
3 points

we lived millions of years apart. we know this from fossils, and the fact their are no human fossils dating back as far as dinosaur fossils

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

No the way they date is extremely flawed how can it be trusted when it is well known among most Scientist that the way they date bones is flawed.

http://dinosaurs.fossilfinds.info/why-do-scientists-use-carbon-dating/

Heres's some more finding soft tissue in dinosaur there have been many found with soft tissue and still visible hemoglobin. Ever hear about the Montana TREx they found bones where still flexible. HMMM! how could that be? Anyway here is another article about the horrible flawed mess of dating and it is only still just a theory not proven fact by any means. Good article to read you will note was still fresh red blood cells. Which don't preserve for millions of years.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

Side: yes
1 point

Ever hear about the Montana TREx they found bones where still flexible. HMMM! how could that be?

- well, you don't have to worry, because it isn't so:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/29/new.research.challenges.notion.dinosaur. soft.tissues.still.survive

The cells by themselves would not have proved that man and t-rex lived together, but now there isn't even that.

Side: No
2 points

Ah this is disappointing to say the least. But on topic for a moment, and believe me it will only be a moment because to give such a notion a second more than a moment of my time would be inconceivable; if you mean by man the earliest genus of homo, which is what I take your meaning to be, then there is absolutely no proof of any such thing, the earliest known genus of homo to be discovered is dated at roughly 4,000,000 years old, the latest of what we know as the dinosaurs is well over 60,000,000 years old. That isn't a conspiracy, its fact, its truth.

If on the other hand you mean any primate then you get a little closer but as far as anything vaguely resembling a homo-sapiens co-existing with the dinosaurs, we can be as sure as we can be without further proof that it never happened - which isn't to say it absolutely never did - just that to the best of our knowledge we think it didn't. That, my friend, is truth in its purest form.

Side: yes
1 point

this is ridiculuous. First off, evolution IS NOT a myth. Its as real as gravity, and if you think that gravity is a lie too, get to a mental hospital. Second, evolution DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with when man and dinosaurs lived. it deals with how animals come to be. Third, Dinosaurs died 65 MILLION YEARS AGO! Homo Sapiens did not come around until maybe 2 million years ago, though the genus homo did arrive by 10 million years ago. Fourth, carbon dating, which determines age, is used on things that were LIVING AT SOME POINT, because the exchange of carbon and the regulation of levels of C14 in life are the premise of carbon dating. Finally, even the question is flawed, because it says "always", and I dont see any dinosaurs around today!

Oh, and its not"dinosours", its "dinosaurs".

Side: Youre crazy if you say yes
2 points

Homo Sapiens (AKA, Humans) have dated back to 150,000 years. Other hominid ancestors have dated back to 3 million.

Side: No
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

There has not been one single proof of any human bones or remains that the Scientific community has said this is it that have dated back more than 5,000 years. The latest attempt failed with Ardi after rushing to judgment and hopefully finding their grail of evolution but only short after with studies from the Scientific community agreed only to be not human just an ape.

Side: yes
prophetman(28) Disputed
0 points

There is no proof in that they have no proof only theorys and suggestions. Show one shred of proof, you cant because there is no proof!

Side: yes
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

oh well excuse me for my misspelling. First off gravity and evolution are two separate things. God made gravity so we wouldn't float off. God made animals and animals can adapt. Like a salt or freshwater Alligator same species but an Alligator will never turn into anything else. Do you know they have still not have any evidence or bones of ape-man that have not been a hoax. And all of the prior ape skulls and skeletons that Science has posted out there to be the missing link have all been scams, So unless they are able to provide something that is not a hoax than evolution is a theory. Gravity is not a theory because we can prove it. It exist! Big difference! You don't' see dinosaurs today what about whales, alligators, snakes? How do they know we arrived 10 million years ago? If you believe in Big Bang? What is your answer for the Inca Burial stones and how they where able to carve Dinosaurs on exactly? Think about evolution for a minute. big bang rained for millions of years then from the biological soup that was made from all of the rain and minerals life formed. We started in water as a fish then as a frog like creature then to an ape and then to a man. I'm sorry that is impossible to prove or even believable. But if you told me that our God who loves us created us in his own image and that he would give us dominion over the world and animals we where created. To me that is much more believable and possible.

Side: yes
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

God made gravity so we wouldn't float off. God made animals and animals can adapt.

Please refrain from bare assertions like these.

Like a salt or freshwater Alligator same species but an Alligator will never turn into anything else.

This statement is erroneous. Organisms change shape, behaviour, colour, breeding cycles, virtually anything you can imagine has changed and will change, due to environmental pressures and mutation, with the only limitation that new features must use existing traits inherited from previous generations.

Birds from dinosaurs, mammals from primitive fish, it's all happened.

Do you know they have still not have any evidence or bones of ape-man that have not been a hoax. And all of the prior ape skulls and skeletons that Science has posted out there to be the missing link have all been scams,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Do more research.

So unless they are able to provide something that is not a hoax than evolution is a theory. Gravity is not a theory because we can prove it. It exist! Big difference!

It doesn't work that way. Theory is the final state for scientific models. Facts are what support a theory. Everyday language is different from scientific language. This is basic stuff that should be obvious to you.

You don't' see dinosaurs today what about whales, alligators, snakes? How do they know we arrived 10 million years ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

If you believe in Big Bang? What is your answer for the Inca Burial stones and how they where able to carve Dinosaurs on exactly?

The two are not connected. Also, mythological creatures resembling certain dinosaurs have been drawn for millennia, what's your point? The hard evidence says that dinosaurs are extinct and have been for tens of millions of years.

Think about evolution for a minute. big bang rained for millions of years then from the biological soup that was made from all of the rain and minerals life formed. We started in water as a fish then as a frog like creature then to an ape and then to a man. I'm sorry that is impossible to prove or even believable.

Sure, when you're ignorant as dirt on a subject it's impossible to believe, and silly mythological genies like "god" fill your mind.

Side: No
Pessimist(182) Disputed
1 point

I will now answer questions and provide counters in no particular order.

Big bang lasted for fractions of a second. Inca Burial stones-hoax. They know we arrived 10 mya through radioactive dating. God does not exist. We DID NOT start off in the water as fish. If you've read up a bit,you'd actually have a fairly good idea of how evolution actually occured. And theyve have lots of skeletons of creatures which represented an earlier stage in primate development.

And gravity cannot be definitely proven any more than evolution. Because to definitively prove something, one must show that under all circumstances, it is true, by a method of arriving at solutions through rigurous logical steps. All we know is that gravity seems to work. We've only been able to test gravity, for all you know, it could fail randomly, because we cannot rigurously prove it. It is accepted as FACT because based on all experiments and data available, its true. This is the science definition of fact, a theory which experiments and checks regularly show to be true.

They have done experiments, and they have checked. Evolution is a FACT.

Side: No
1 point

You know you're stuff! Great job, man! I find your arguments very encouraging. Keep it up!

Side: yes
1 point

I understand, to justify your belief system, that all words of the bible have to be true. If one word of the bible is not right, then doubt can be placed on all of it. So in your mind dinosaurs had to live with man. I do not really care what fantasies you like to entertain. Mankind has had many different religions and all say they are the truth. Also, the only thing I think that is awesome about intelligent design is, you are not allowed to say it was a god that did the designing. You also have to admit the possibility that it could have been space aliens. One day, through education/knowledge, mankind will crush all religions. I just hope there will not be any super-intelligent sea otters that will want to crush our skulls like clams on their tummies.

Side: Youre crazy if you say yes
jtopolnak(158) Disputed
1 point

Read some and look at some of my last comments. I'm having fun on here if even one person opens their mind and looks at empirical evidence in ancient history to Marco Polo, Job, dinosaur drawings in caves all over the world you have to honestly say how can that be? The big lie tells us that the first dinosaur bone was found 1787. So if that's so then how are there literally thousand of references of Dragons or Behemoths mentioned and drawn out all over the world. Here is the cave drawings in Arizona and other places that are artifacts 500 to 5000 years old. Unless they had an incredible imagination i don't know how they where able to make such perfect dinosaurs of what we have today in that of Fossils. I don't have to justify anything it's pretty obvious even to a non beleiver when i show them these things most people are never aware. I hope you open your eyes to this and see the lie the world is telling us.

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Satan has control over the world, and the world is in the arms of the devil, where it lies fast asleep and carnally secure, ...

Side: yes
1 point

um........................................................................................................................ no

Side: No
1 point

Dinosaur comes from the Greek deinos "terrible, monstrous " and sauros "lizard".

Thus, I'd say no on an evolutionary viewpoint. However, humans have been around descendants of dinosaurs for a long time- birds, alligators, etc.

Side: No
1 point

Well no if we are talking about the dinosaurs that lived 65 million years ago but alligators and crocodiles are considered to be evolved dinosaurs so if by dinosaur you mean any type then in a sense as long as humanity has lived we have always lived with dinosaurs but dinosaurs 65 million years ago (last of the dinosaurs) never lived with us then or before that.

Side: depends what you consider a dinosaur

more than 30 scientific arguments against a young earth:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

Side: No

if dinosaurs like t-rex lived recently, what event wiped them out?

Side: No
1 point

This whole debate is predicated on misunderstanding. Evolutionarily, mammals had just develped the mammalian heart at this time, it took the extinction of the dinosaurs to 'open the earth up' for mammalian dominance, at which time the diversity of larger mammals like apes became possible.

Side: no
1 point

We don't have them now, do we?

~~~~~~~~~~

Side: no
1 point

Yeah, always... I see them every day...Not! Man and Dino's have not always lived together, because they don't live today!

Side: no