This information isn’t new, but bears repeating since it is often ignored by the God-hating Darwinists. It is an article that appears at the Creation Moments website. 
“Proof of Humans and Dinosaurs Together
Genesis 1:31
“Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
According to the story of life offered by evolution, dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years before man ever set foot on Earth. According to the Bible, all living things were made during a six-day period of time. This means that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time. If evidence that they lived together could be found, evolutionary history would be very seriously challenged.
Scientists who believe in creation know that if human remains were found fossilized with dinosaur remains, evolutionists could not ignore the evidence. That evidence has been discovered in a giant fossil graveyard that has even been described in the scientific literature. Textbooks on evolution neglect to mention it for obvious reasons.
The layer is a 15- to 18-inch thick layer of phosphate rock in the southeastern United States. The rock is 65 percent phosphate, which means that the layer is made primarily of the bones of dead animals. The bones were clearly deposited by a huge flood – the deposit is at least as large as the Everglades! And mixed into the layer are bones of all sorts of animals that evolution says could not have lived together, including human bones and Hadrosaurus bones.
Did men of the generations recorded in the Bible see great herds of duckbill dinosaurs ranging the grasslands of the Earth? According to the Bible, they could have. Now geology has finally caught up with the Bible!
References: John Allen Watson. 1991. Phosphate Rocks/Bone Phosphates of South Carolina. The Ark Today VI:5, Nov./Dec. p. 14-19.”
This post has been updated here.
May 12, 2007 at 4:25 pm |
Not all Darwinists are “God-hating.”
May 17, 2007 at 7:17 am |
[i]The layer is a 15- to 18-inch thick layer of phosphate rock in the southeastern United States.[\i]
As you are making an extrordinary claim (one that would disprove a large amount of accepted science) you’re going to have to provide details (like a location, as in state, city, not a generalized location that amounts to nearly a quarter of the continental United States). Images or other material evidence would be welcomed as well.
May 17, 2007 at 9:55 pm |
This layer of phosphate is in South Carolina. I am in the process of finding more information and once I do, I’ll update this post.
June 2, 2007 at 5:03 pm |
[...] More information on the co-existence of dinosaurs & humans I recently purchased a booklet by John Allen Watson, Man Dinosaurs and Mammals Together, that goes into detail about his research of the South Carolina phosphate beds where fossils had previously been recovered showing man roaming the Earth at the same time as dinosaurs. Mr. Watson, who is now retired and resides in Texas, got his Bachelor of Science in geology from the University of Texas @ Austin with continuing education courses in hydrology and meterology, working for a time as a hydrologist with the Texas Water Commission. He worked with creation scientists on his research project. Here are excerpts from his booklet to update my previous post: [...]
January 11, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
I am totally for the creationist point of view because it is the only logical one.Darwinism does not make sense. first what did the first organisms eat before plants came around (proof of creation)? how did they gain the abbility to adapt(proof of creation)? and there is proof of Man and dinosaurs around many don’t want to look at it for what it is because that would discredit them. also they can’t comprehend it(an engineer understands engines while a poet understands poetry but they can’t understand each other’s studies)
March 26, 2008 at 9:00 pm |
I’m am not a “darwinist” nor am I a “non-believer”. I think that both science and the Bible can be correct. So much of the Bible is written in a form so that definite timelines can not be deduced. Recall that the Christian Church, more specifically the Catholic Church long held the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. We all now widely accept that view as untrue. I believe that God created the earth and all things….and maybe he did in seven like Genesis says. But, in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, I have a problem believing that men and dinosaurs coexisted. If they did, why is there no cave art suggesting that? Our ancestors drew elaborate pictures of a wide variety of creatures on cave walls. Ask yourself this: If T-Rex was roaming around in your happy hunting ground, don’t you think it would merit at least one picture on the cave wall? Wouldn’t at least one early hunter have at least carved a trinket that looked something like a huge dino. Granted, if T-Rex were wandering around outside my cave I’d probably be praying really, really hard and maybe too busy to do any painting. But there’s not one single example dinosaurs in cave art. Why not? Some of you might say “Well what about dragons, they look like dinosaurs and there are lots of those depicted in all kinds of ways and art and stories”. Okay, so do we believe in fire breathing dragons? I haven’t met any Christians claiming they really existed any more than the Native American Thunderbird. We have a wealth of writings and art going back to Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt and none of suggest that dinosaurs coexisted with man. Yes the Greeks believed in all kinds of monsters and gods of every description, but where are the dinosaurs? Sure they other names for things…but don’t you think that at least one of those would translate into something that we could understand as being the same as a dinosaur rather the figment of a wine induced semi-coma? And again, where’s the pictures?
Also, if the earth is only ten thousand years old (as strict interpretations of Genesis suggest) then our whole scientific system is on it’s ear. Physics doesn’t work, gravity doesn’t work, light theories are out the door, the atomic bomb, nuclear reactors, jet airplanes…nothing works. Buildings would be falling down too. Where in the New Testatment does Jesus say “Verily I say unto you the earth is only eight thousand years old”?
Besides, Genesis is the Old Testament which belongs to the Jews. The Jews don’t even believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Then why are so many Christians clinging to the Old Testament as proof that the earth is only ten thousand years old?
I’m sorry folks, but I think there’s room for both science and God in this world. God is not the Bible. People wrote the Bible…inspired by God’s word yes. But remember this also: people have been many wrong things every since Adam and Eve shared and apple. Looking at a book written an edited by creatures as miss-guided we humans often are, I can not discount all of science. Yes, science can also be miss-guided, but I’m not going to stop going to the doctor just yet. And I’m praying you don’t either.
March 26, 2008 at 9:50 pm |
Dennis,
I find it curious that you imply that you’re a believer, then at the end of your statements you imply that the Bible has mistakes. You are like so many people in churches today who think you can pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to accept, but it doesn’t work like that. The Old Testament and New Testament are proclamations of the same God. You can’t have one without the other. Claiming that the Old Testament has no bearing on Christianity is just like the unsaved Jews claiming that Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the Old Testament. Your statements against the Bible remind me of what Satan through the serpent asked Eve–”Yea, hath God said…?”–to question God’s credibility. BTW, Adam and Eve didn’t eat an apple. It was a fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Your questions about cave drawings and such makes quite a few assumptions. The complete population of mankind didn’t dwell in caves, first of all. Then there’s the matter that you assume that no cave drawings exist of dinosaurs. How would you know? Have you been to every cave in the world that has a cave drawing? Have the scientists even discovered every cave or looked at every pyramid or discovered every writing of men yet? Archaeologists are coming across new discoveries practically every day. Nevertheless, some of the information may not be published since those who are Darwinists have a tendency to cover up information that doesn’t fit their theories, yet you assume that they only tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Men who don’t fear God have a tendency to lie, but since you don’t really believe what the Bible says, that simple truth is something you find hard to accept.
With regard to your “age of the earth” questions, once again you are making rather broad assumptions. The laws of physics pre-date theories of natural selection by a couple of centuries and the other technological advances you mentioned have nothing to do with Darwin. If Darwin and his theories never existed, we would still have atomic bombs and airplanes since the Chinese invented explosives and Leonardo da Vinci drew and built models of flying machines without any of Darwin’s influences. Later scientists came along to build on foundations that these people set.
God and the Bible are not opposed to science, as you imply. The greatest discoveries of science have come about when men read the Bible and took God at his word by faith, then acted on what God said to advance their knowledge, but of course this isn’t what is taught in history or science classes nowadays.
April 23, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html
Please read this.
if you would like to speak with me please do at this email address.
shastat78@yahoo.com.
Oh yeah gaylord St. Augustine talked about developmentary creationism way before Darwin ever thought of it as the aforesaid website speaks of.
April 23, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
gaylord once again your inference that the person above you “MUst Not” be a believer is another thing so common when the only authority is ones personal interpretation of the bible but if you knew that most critical scholarship and common sense are showing that man before us thought much differently than us currently it would not be so impossible to believe that the Bible though true and Gods word is filled with metaphors, hyperbole, antroprmorphisms, and other things the “unstable can distort to their own distruction even as they do the rest of the scriptures.” We know that many things that have a scientific cause that were unknown than were simply labeled “God did it” . Evaporation, condensation, precipitation…”God did it”. You see what I am saying? Do you honestly believe that God wants us to kill like the Jews were so many times commanded? Or is the saying “The law bringeth wrath but grace and truth cometh through Jesus Christ” of know effect? It seems to me that the Old Testament revels the sad state of mans nature and is therefore a divine rebuke while the New Testament is the spark that catches fire to reveal a “new nature”. Peace.
April 23, 2008 at 9:06 pm |
No, dognose, I don’t see what you’re saying.
The Dennis guy I criticized blatantly said that the Bible is a reflection of misguided individuals who wrote it. All I said was that I found it strange that he claims to be Christian, then tries to discount God’s holy word. A Christian has to believe what is recorded in the Bible in order to be saved. If he’s questioning what it says, that means he questions who Jesus said he was and he questions his virgin birth and he questions his sinless state.
And your question–should we kill people as the Jews were commanded to do–is a baseless argument that is often used to question one’s obedience to God. Those who are spiritually mature, or at least have an ounce of godly wisdom, know that certain things commanded by God in the Bible are for certain people and not for others, or that they can be symbolic or used to establish a general principle to help us understand God. For instance, God does not expect everyone to get circumcised as he commanded the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac to do. Nor does he expect us Christians to celebrate Passover. When it came to the Jews killing the inhabitants of the land God gave them, it was to punish them for their sins and the Jews had a deadline which they blew and it became too late for them to carry it out.
I’m well aware people twist scripture, but I’m also well aware that the Bible has scientific truths if one examines it and asks God to reveal it. That’s how Galileo, Newton, and other scientists who were Christians were able to be so accurate. When the people in the Bible gave glory to God for some scientific occurrence, it was because they had the basic understanding that God put the scientific occurrence into motion. It’s when science tries to do away with God to take away his glory and his word, like Darwinism does, that it becomes false science.
June 2, 2008 at 1:23 pm |
To infer that God was supporting mans primal ignorance and rage and was not trying to bring man to a civil state of mind where instead of killing uniformed peoples for their sins but rather informing them of their sinfulness is stupid. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.
Was he a war-lord in the past enlisting armies and than a pascifist on a cross in the future?
Was God jealous to the point of not being able to contain Himself with few offenses in the old testament but absolutely grace filled in the New?
If God as we know Him in the Old is perfectly revealed by Jesus in the new than there is at best scanty evidence of similarity unless one can trust in antromorphic modes of literature as being a way for God to reveal what we try to stamp him with revealing ourselves to us…than in the New God reveals Himself to ourself. “In old times God spoke in many and varied ways through the prophets but now he has revealed himself through His son.” Sure there are glimpses of the God of grace in the Old but there seems more glipses of a God of wrath. Sure there are scientific ideas and references in the Bible and that is all well in good (and I believe religion and science should intersect.) but the Bible is “primarily” a book of faith and not a book of science. there are some who give interesting “defences” for old earth theories but to the most part I feel these things can be disproved by the Bible itself and the many rabbinic modes of interpretation as well as the early church fathers who as far as the compilation of the Bible goes make us their debtors.
June 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm |
oh yes and as you say he “implies”.
he also said it was “gods word”.
if there are no false translations of the Bible than what of the Jehovahs witness translation?
The Restored latter Day saints version of the Old testament?
Is Gods word being compromised here?
And what about all the books the Protestants took out of the Bible based upon Martin Luther and his example of the Jewish Council of Jamnia (which was curiously enough a council that denied Yeshua as Christ.) Why did Martin Luther follow the dictates of a council that denied ChristThe Septuagint and the Deutero-Canonical books were held as scriptural by most of the common people of Christs day.
June 2, 2008 at 6:56 pm |
dognose,
God has always given man ample time to repent before executing his direct or indirect judgment. That’s why he is described as being longsuffering in the scriptures. When a person or group of people’s sins reach a certain level predetermined by a sovereign God, he steps in with his judgment (see Genesis 15:14-16; 18:20-21; Jonah 1:2; Matthew 23:30-33; 1 Corinthians 11:30-32; and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). From the time God commissioned Noah to build an ark to the time he sent his judgment through the flood, there were 120 years that Noah preached to the people that they should repent.
Your rambling seems to be rather incoherent so I don’t know if I’m addressing your concerns or not. If you can get to the point of whatever arguments you’re trying to make in a more organized manner, I can address them clearly.
If your second comment is questioning how we got the present books that are included in the Bible, I can only assume you’re talking about the Apocryphal books and I can only address why they were rejected for the Authorized Version (KJV). They were rejected, but included separately for historical purposes, in the KJV because when they were compared to the manuscripts that were known to be authentic, it was discovered that the Apocryphal books promoted doctrines that were not in keeping with the genuine doctrines in the authentic manuscripts (i.e. the Masoretic or Textus Receptus).