In Reply To

How does the size of a dinosaur indicate whether they were alive when humans were?

Well lets put it this way...

There is no way to determine how old things are based on where they are found. It's based on an imaginary assumption, and these facts and more show how that assumption holds no validity at all.

They need burial and time. That's a fact. The assumption is that the burial takes millions of years, thus the depth they are buried at shows how old they are. That's definitely flawed. If they were buried quickly it could easily have happened in 6000 years or less. And it only makes sense that they WERE buried quickly, because otherwise they would have decomposed.

You've not seen evidence yourself. YOU have not researched and discovered reasonable explanations. You can't explain it in your own words. You just assumed it to be correct.

In Reply To

Impractical based on the assumption that it takes longer than that for things to fossilize. But There is no way to determine how old things are based on where they are found. So how exactly do you conlude that it's impractical?

In Reply To

What about carbon dating; The Half-Life formula? A molecule of carbon will diminish by one half each year or so.

Recently it has been discovered that "homo habilis" and "erectus" lived at the same time (but in different places) and "neanderthal" was discovered in the same place as modern human bones.

In Reply To

Actually, it's a rounded amount. You can tell somewhat on how old things are based on scientific studies. Not an exact amount, no way. But a rounded between a million or so years. A lot, yes. But the fact is that you can use fossils to find a possible time period.

You can't just find a fossil and say, "Oh my God! Triassic Era!!!"

And what exactly do you believe what happened?

In Reply To

The fossil record was created by a relatively immediate burial. It is no indication of how old the earth is.

Same place doesn't mean same time frame

In Reply To

It does logically, and it does when it is convenient to the evolution theory, and it sometimes doesn't when it is convenient. Like I said, it's inconsistent. Things are interpreted to mean what they want it to mean. And many times, bones were found far away from each other, but still attributed to the same creature. In other words creatures that never existed are being fabricated to support evolution.

We went off track. This stuff belongs in the evolution thread.

Why?
I think there could have been only one continent once, but the idea that countries "fit together" doesn't seem very scientific. If there was a single continent, the land was totally reformed catastrophically, not through extremely slow "drifting".