Sunday, January 30, 2011

Man and Dinosaurs Together?

Can you spot the Dinosaur in this ancient carving?
One contentious facet of Young Earth Creationism is the belief that humans walked the earth with dinosaurs only 4000 years ago.

This belief is rubbished by evolutionists because it is in complete contradiction with their own beliefs. They believe that dinosaurs ceased to exist over 65 million years ago.

They come to this conclusion because their interpretation of the earth’s rocks shows no fossilised dinosaurs which is dated by radiometric dating methods to be younger than 65 million years.

The dating methods that produce these dates are not the topic of this particular article, and have been adequately refuted many times by others.

The reason why this logic is fundamentally flawed is that it relies on the absence of evidence, rather than the presence of evidence. This is a logical fallacy called an Argument from Ignorance.

Even if we accept their false dates for the sake of the argument (which I will for this article), the absence of fossils from a certain period of hypothetical time does not mean that that particular animal did not live at that particular time.

Three basic ways that a species of animal could be alive and not leave fossils is if 1) it moved to an environment where the fossilization process just didn’t occur. 2) a species population size temporarily and dramatically decreased to a size where fossilization would never occur. Or 3) we just haven’t found any fossils yet! Remember that palaeontologists have only dug a few miniscule little holes when compared to the vast volumes of fossil-laden soils of the earth’s surface.

But what is even more significant is that even according to the evolutionist’s own models, it is incontrovertibly accepted that species routinely lived for vast amounts of time without ever leaving even a hint of fossil evidence!
Some gaps are so large that when put in context of the whole fossil record, the gaps turn into vast chasms, some as large as three quarters of the whole fossil record!

The fact is that, even assuming the corrupt radiometric dates of the theory of evolution for arguments sake, if the fossil record fails to record the existence of a species for such vast amounts of time, then how can we trust the alleged finely graduated sequence of evolution that is claimed of the fossil record?

Similarly, how can we really trust that dinosaurs haven’t been on earth in the last 65 million years (assuming the evolutionist’s theory) based on an absence of fossils, when other species are claimed by evolutionists to live for hundreds of millions of years without leaving any fossil evidence at all???

So when all this is combined with the corrupt dates ascribed to the fossils, we have even more reason to disregard the alleged evolutionary history as nothing more than dubious speculation.

And no amount of dubious speculation, no matter how frequently and dogmatically parroted, will ever match the veracity of the clear and omniscient word of God.


  1. Hello! I have read a lot of your posts on's creationist's forum and "The Ultimate Proof of Creationism" by Jason Lisle, and it made me wonder a lot.

    I am a first-year student in biochemistry, and as such, I'm trying to reconcile how exactly does a creationist come to the conclusion that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, give or take.

    I have taken a general biology course and am currently taking a geology course and a cell biology course, and I'm trying to reconcile the contradicting data I'm getting from my professors and you.

    I don't know much, but I am always eager to learn. I don't know any publications, I don't have scientific articles to back my knowledge, just what intellectual baggage I've picked up so far. I can't say I'll be 100% unbiased, but I'll do my best.

    So, first off, what puzzles me most is this Great Flood thing. What exactly is this event in real-world terms, and where is the geological evidence of such a catastrophic event?

    And later on, I would like to discuss certain issues about genetics. Like I said, I don't know much, but I am going in biochemistry to hopefully some day do research in the genetic/genomic department. Mostly the genetic decay and genetic 'proof' of creationism confuses me. I mostly read that from your posts on

    Thanks for answering!

  2. Hey Alex,

    I’ll start with the age of the earth. At the bottom of this page I have a link to my web page that deals with this question more thoroughly (I’m still building the whole website so it only contains a very small amount of info at this stage).
    1) The radiometric dating methods that are employed to derive ages of millions and billions of years are very dodgy and unreliable. The dates obtained by radiometric dating techniques are only ever used when they agree with what the geologists want to see. Any incongruous dates are simply discarded and aren’t even published!
    I’m not saying that this is some kind of anti-creationist conspiracy by ‘big bad evil evolutionists’. It is simply the case that radiometric dating is not the accurate dating technique that they want it to be.

    2) While there simply isn’t any way of accurately determining the age of things, there are many very interesting phenomena which prove that the earth simply can’t be anymore than a couple of thousand years old.
    A) The short-lived isotope of Carbon 14 is found in all fossils, oil and coal. Because of the very short half-life of this isotope, we know that these biogenic materials can not be the hundreds of millions of years that evolutionists ascribe to them.
    B) More and more dinosaur bones are being found to contain soft tissue, and sometimes even blood cells! This also proves that fossils that evolutionists say are tens of millions of years old really can not be much more than a couple of thousand years old.
    C) The earth’s magnetic field is rapidly decaying. It is decaying at such a fast rate that it too can not be much older than 6-10 thousand years.

    These are the most compelling evidences that the earth is only a couple of thousand years old. Here you will find a lot more:
    This is only the tip of the iceberg. Btw, you will find a lot of anti-creationist material attempting to rebut this evidence, but none of it sticks.

    The Global Flood was extraordinarily catastrophic. It uprooted everything, tossed it all about and threw it back down is a horrid mess. The whole fossil record and geologic column is evidence of this. The fossils all show signs of aquatic burial. The only way to fossilize animals, especially huge animals like T-Rex and whales, is to bury them rapidly, and deep. The fossil record screams “flood”!

    The whole geological column also shows evidence of aquatic deposition. All geologic forms also scream “flood”.
    All you have to do is look at the Grand Canyon to appreciate this. This mammoth gash (up to 29 km wide and 1km deep) could never have been formed by the small trickle of water that currently flows through it. Even the largest river on earth- the Amazon River- is incapable of such a feat. The Amazon River is claimed to be millions of years old yet it hasn’t carved any canyon, let alone one the size of the Grand Canyon!
    The only way that a gigantic gash in the earth like the Grand Canyon can be formed is by flooding the size of a global flood.

    One of the best evidence for a global flood is flood transported quartzites on the North American continent. The paper that I have linked to below explains how enormous amounts of quartzite boulders covering a huge distance have been strewn over 1000km away from their source. Such widespread distribution of such large boulders can only be explained by the global flood which is recorded in the bible.

    As I said before, this only scratches the surface of the evidence for Young Earth Creationism. The more you look the more prodigious the evidence becomes.
    If you have any questions or queries, please don’t hesitate to ask.

  3. Hello Tim! Just to say, I wrote a response, but unfortunately, it doesn't fit here, it's longer than 4,000 characters. Would you like to pursue this by email?


  4. Tim? I could post the reply here in three different messages if you want.