Debunking Creationism: "Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisted 6,000 Years Ago!"


Thumbnail photos: Roy Buri; David Lines, Creation Evidence Museum/GenesisPark


A commonly-held creationist viewpoint is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted less than 6,000 years ago. As we read on,


"A recent survey by YouGov . . . found that 41 percent of those queried think dinosaurs and humans 'probably' or 'definitely' once co-existed on Earth at the same time."


41%. That's almost half of Americans that believe this nonsense. Supporting evidence for this position includes the Bible, cultural evidence, archaeological evidence, and fossil evidence. As we'll see in this post, none of this evidence stands up to scrutiny, and there is no good reason to believe this claim.

The Institute for Creation Research writes the following in an article with the straight-to-the-point title "Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted":


"The Bible states that 'every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind' was created by God on Day Six of the creation week (Genesis 1:25)—including dinosaurs. On this same day, the first man and woman were also created (Genesis 1:26-27). Over 1,600 years later, Genesis 8:15 records that a pair of each land-dwelling animal 'wherein is the breath of life'—again including dinosaurs—were taken aboard an ark that would have held over 101,000 square feet of floor space."


Well, the Bible says so, so therefore it must be true! Serious question: If the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese, what percentage of Christians would firmly believe this in the face of all the available evidence? 10%? 20%? 40%? The fact that the answer isn't a resolute zero says a lot about the religious mindset. 

It should go without saying that this is not how scientific conclusions are reached: You don't just consult your preferred holy book, blindly assume that what is says is true, and call it a day; you have to actually present convincing evidence that what you claim is true. So what actual evidence is there to support the idea that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?

One piece of evidence is that the Bible accurately describes sauropods—and thus, we're told, this indicates first-hand observations of living dinosaurs. As the ICR continues:


"The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur."


Some archaeological evidence is a rock-carving in Utah which purportedly shows a sauropod dinosaur. The ICR writes the following


"Underneath a spectacular rock formation in Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah is a rock carving that resembles a sauropod dinosaur. The petroglyph has been presented as evidence supporting the biblical creation model prediction that man and dinosaurs lived together."


Here we see a picture of this alleged sauropod drawing, courtesy of (with some sauropods for comparison.)

I don't see why anybody should be impressed by either this Bible passage or this rock carving: The most un-creative person in world history could imagine a large beast with four legs and a tail. It's such a generic organism! I challenge you to think of something less original than that. It can't be done.

The fact that somebody drew this or wrote about this doesn't mean that they saw it with their own eyes and coexisted with it. Maybe they were just using their imagination to conjure up an image of a massive, terrifying beast? 

Or maybe they stumbled across some fossilized dinosaur bones, they saw how huge they were, and they drew the obvious conclusion that it came from a large animal? There's good reason to believe that many ancient stories or mythological creatures originated in precisely this way. As we read in Prehistoric Life: Evolution and the Fossil Record by Bruce Lieberman and Roger Kaesler, 


". . . interest in fossils and knowledge of paleontology certainly extends back to the time of the ancient Greeks, around 400 BCE; we know this because there were ancient Greeks who wrote on this topic. . . . the Greek countryside contains fossil remains of immense animals that once walked the Earth. . . . there was a natural desire to explain what these bones represented. Typically, what the ancient Greeks did was fit the bones into their myths or used their myths to explain the occurrence of gigantic bones." 

Source: p. 193; 196. Prehistoric Life: Evolution and the Fossil Record, by Bruce S. Lieberman and Roger Kaesler. 2010.


And what kind of a shitty dinosaur drawing is this anyway? The head is way too big; the legs are way too short; the tail is way too thick and it's inaccurately depicted as dragging on the ground. I'd love to see what kind of fucked up, inbred dinosaurs were apparently romping around 5,000 years ago! 

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense, actually: What could the remaining dinosaurs do after the flood except inbreed with each other? Maybe this drawing is completely accurate, and the dinosaurs back then were just miserably deformed? Or maybe, just maybe, the biologically inaccurate features of this rock-carving—especially the dragging tail—make clear that whoever was responsible did not observe living dinosaurs with his own eyes. 

The creationist argument becomes even less tenable when you discover that the researchers who have studied this petroglyph don't believe that it originally depicted what we see it as today. As we read in an article on


"The researchers found the 'neck' and 'head' of Dinosaur 1 are a composite of two separate petroglyphs, while the 'legs' appear to just be stains. 'I wonder if, during the process of weathering, chemicals from the man-made, [etched] part dripped down to form the "legs,"' Senter said. 'Lots of mineral stains are all over the canyon that contains Kachina Bridge.'"


And here we see what these researchers say was actually carved in dark gray and what's merely the result of staining in light gray.

P. Senter and S. Cole/

But again, even if this creature was intentionally carved into the rock and did resemble a sauropod, this doesn't mean that humans and sauropods coexisted less than 6,000 years ago.

Another piece of archaeological evidence used to support this position are The Ica Stones. This is a large collection of engraved stones that originate from the Ica Province in Peru that depict, among other things, a variety of unmistakable dinosaurs. Here's one such example. The stegosaurus at the top-right is especially impressive.

Unfortunately for the creationist, it's not enough to just look at some stones that show dinosaurs and conclude that they lived with humans. Where did the stones from from? When were they originally created and by who? How do we know this? Are they authentic? Could they possibly have been faked? These are some of the questions that we need to ask and answer before we can start talking about the implications of these stones.

The young-earth creationist, however, doesn't feel the need to burden himself with such inconvenient inquiries; as Don Patton writes on


"These stones do not depict skeletons but live, active dinosaurs, most of whom are seen interacting with man. The obvious implication is that ancient Peruvians saw and lived with dinosaurs."


There is not so much as a trace of skepticism in this guy's words. "Well, the stones show this, therefore, this is what happened!" You could show this guy a stone with the words "YOU ARE GULLIBLE" carved into it, and I bet his reaction would be: "Oh my God...the Incans spoke English?!"

If you actually examine the history of these stones, you quickly discover that there are several reasons to doubt their authenticity. First off, as Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews writes on


"After talking with the locals, [Dr Javier Cabrera Darquea] claimed to have discovered many more stones hidden in a cave near the coastal mountains, where there are at least 100,000 more that he had not removed. He never revealed the location of the cave to archaeologists who might assess this cache of stones in situ."


This is a major red-flag right here. Why would you be keeping secret the alleged location of your discovery unless there's something to hide? And how could you confirm the authenticity of the stones without allowing independent teams of researchers to study them out in the field?

As they point out on The Skeptic's Dictionary,


"Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them."


If you strongly believe that these stones are not fakes, wouldn't you want to prove all of the skeptics wrong by allowing independent researchers to confirm that they're the real deal? In case you're tempted to argue that Dr. Cabrera is a trustworthy arbiter of the stones' authenticity, it's worth pointing out that he isn't even an archaeologist; he was trained as a physician, so even if he was an honest actor, he very well could just be genuinely mistaken in his conclusions about these stones.

Not only that, but one of Cabrera's sources of the stones admitted that they were outright fabrications! As Fitzpatrick-Matthews continues


 "The farmer who gave Cabrera his first stone was subsequently arrested for selling the stones to tourists. In his defence, he said that he had not in fact found them in a cave, as he had told Dr Cabrera, but made them himself. Other local people continue to make these engraved stones. They are selling forged hoaxes."


Given these facts, instead of proving that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, it's much more likely that these dinosaur-depicting Ica Stones are simply forgeries.

Creationists, however, have more evidence up their sleeve. As the Institute For Creation Research continues,


"Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs."


Once again, just because people imagined or talked about something like this doesn't mean that they actually lived with it. 

And really? Dragon legends match up with the descriptions of certain dinosaurs? If that's the case, please let me know which dinosaurs were capable of breathing fire while flying, because I am just dying to learn about them.

Their logic here seems to imply that if multiple cultures have independently described similar mythological creatures, this creature, or something like it, therefore must exist and must have interacted with these people—and this is flat nonsense. What if, instead of dragons, these different cultures all described a gigantic man with five penises? Would we therefore conclude that he existed—and that perhaps he was engaged in some kind of worldwide flashing tour? Obviously not, so why would we treat the dragon myth any differently? 

And, as is the case with other mythological creatures, descriptions of dragons could also be somewhat grounded in reality: Joseph Stromberg on argues that perhaps these myths are the result of people discovering the remains of dinosaurs, crocodiles, or even whales.

But enough about culture and archaeology; time to bring out the big-guns: clear fossil evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. The Institute For Creation Research writes the following


"The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as 'still squishy' and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago."


First off, notice that the creationist assumption here is that soft-tissue preservation equals recent death—and not just recent death, but death within the past 6,000 years. On what grounds do they reach such a conclusion? Where is the evidence demonstrating that soft-tissue preservation means that the organism must have died less than 6,000 years ago? 

Is there research that supports this claim? They do call themselves the Institute For Creation Research, after all, so I would imagine that they have reams of data attesting to this fact! In reality, all they're doing is assuming that this is true because such a conclusion matches up with their worldview. This is lazy thinking and this is not how science is done. 

As we read about in an article on by Stephanie Pappas, how long soft tissue can be preserved for varies widely depending upon the conditions.


". . . scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The [T. rex] tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.

Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the [68-million-year-old] T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.

. . . After death . . . iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging. 'The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,' Schweitzer said. 'They basically act like formaldehyde.'

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay."


So contrary to what these creationists argue, soft-tissue preservation does not necessitate recent death.

The final pieces of evidence we'll take a look at allegedly show fossilized dinosaur footprints overlapping with human footprints. provides this example on their website, and frankly, it looks like absolutely nothing to me.

If you had no background knowledge about the subject at hand and weren't already mentally primed to be looking for human footprints, if I showed you this picture out of the blue, you'd be like: "What the fuck is this? Why are you showing me a random slab or rock?" 
Even knowing that this is exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for, I just don't see it, certainly not to a degree that I'm impressed by what I'm looking at; all I see a depression in the rock that very vaguely resembles the outline of a human foot—and to look at this and say that that's what it necessarily is is to demonstrate a very active imagination and an inability to exhaust alternative explanations. If you look at this and conclude that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, you're probably the type of person who looks at a piece of burnt toast and sees Jesus playing badminton: 

"Forget about the Holy Ghost; this right here is the Holy Toast, my friend!" 

"Actually, it's just a piece of burnt bread. Now we're gonna have to ask you to leave the restaurant, sir, because you're scaring all of our customers with your insane, religious rantings!"

A more impressive example of fossil evidence is what's known as The Delk Print.

As we can see here, both the dinosaur and the alleged human footprint are much more pronounced. So what should we conclude here? That our current timeline of evolutionary history is grossly wrong on the basis of this one fossil? Or perhaps there's something wrong with this fossil? Well, that's precisely what Glen J. Kuban argues on his website There, he points out a number of problems with The Delk Print. 

First and foremost, there's


". . . a more central and scientific concern: the lack of in situ documentation, which leaves uncertain the exact location of the original track bed, and whether both prints and all their details were originally part of it. To date it has not even been clearly established that the rock is Cretaceous, let alone that it was part of a specific track bed near Glen Rose."


He also points out a number of abnormalities with the human footprint: 


". . . the hallux (big toe) of the 'human' print is exceedingly deep compared to the rest of the print. . . . The middle three toe marks are also unusually long (or overly separated from the ball area). . . . The instep (left) side of the print appears unnaturally straight. The heel appears overly square on the left side, insufficiently depressed compared to the rest of the print (the heel is normally one of the deepest areas).

I am not familiar with any genuine footprints showing the complete suite of abnormalities displayed in the Delk print, or a comparable level of overall aberrance."


Finally, he points out that there's a history of outright fraudulence associated with such human footprints, suggesting that this is the explanation for this particular fossil:


"If [forgery] occurred, it would not be the first time. In the 1970's, Glen Rose resident Wayland 'Slim' Adams, explained to a group of creationists how his uncle George Adams, who carved human tracks on loose blocks and sold them to tourists during the Great Depression, usually did start with existing (but not human) depressions. George's granddaughter recently confirmed this, as well as her grandfather's use of acid to blur chisel marks."


Given these observations and concerns, I think it's reasonable to conclude that The Delk Print is not an authentic fossil.

Arguably the most powerful and widely-cited evidence in favor of this viewpoint are not just individual footprints viewed in isolation, but outright tracks discovered in situ which we're told show dinosaur footprints alongside human footprints in the exact same layer of rock. The most famous of these is The Taylor Trail, discovered in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. On, we see a number of pictures of the trail, as well as close-ups of the allegedly human footprints. Here, we see the trail itself:


And here we see a cartoon on the website apparently illustrating what these people think happened: humans and dinosaurs were simultaneously fleeing the great flood, and in the chaos, their footprints overlapped.

By the way, what's with this religious romanticizing of a hideous Bible story where almost all life on earth is brutally killed by a capricious, vengeful God? Look at this cartoon with the cuddly dinosaurs and the silly person running away: "Aww, how adorable! They're all drowning together!" Imagine a similar cartoon of the Rwandan genocide showing goofy-looking Hutus and Tutsis harmlessly bonking each other over the head with clubs while some of them stand dazed with little tweety birds around their head! This is weird, okay?
Anyway, onto the footprints: Let's completely rule out the possibility of fakery and assume that these footprints are genuine. While they may look tantalizing, obviously this picture of The Taylor Trail alone proves nothing, because we can make out no detail of the individual footprints and we thus have no indications of what actually created these footprints. To get a better idea of what we're seeing, we need to take a closer look at some of the individual footprints.

Here we see what's known as track number -3B. While you can sort of make out what looks somewhat like human toes if you use your imagination, clearly there's not enough detail that it's unmistakably human. They have another picture on the website where they've highlighted how a human foot would fit in, but all they're doing here is drawing onto the rock what they want us to see. If the evidence is so convincing, why not just let the fossil speak for itself?


Another one of the footprints, +6, is even less impressive. Really, dude? This is necessarily a human foot? I don't think so.


How about track number +3? Again, really? This must have been created by a human? It's basically just an oval-shaped depression. And what's more, when the water level is higher, you can make out what looks like part of the toes of a dinosaur foot splaying out to the sides.


How about track number +5? There is nothing impressive about this photo, and nothing about this footprint screams "human!"


Glenn J. Kuban spent several years studying the Paluxy sites, and his conclusion is that what we're looking at are nothing more than dinosaur footprints that possibly underwent slight modification before preservation. As he writes in his 1986 publication in the Creation/Evolution Journal


"After thoroughly exposing and cleaning the Taylor site during a drought in the summer of 1980, Bartholomew and I took many measurements and photographs of the tracks and made several rubber casts. We noted that many of the alleged 'mantracks' did have a general oblong shape, rounded heel, and mud push-ups around the back and sides of the track but that they differed in significant ways from what would be expected from genuine human tracks. Most splayed into a wide 'V' at the anterior, and some showed long, shallow grooves at the anterior in positions that were incompatible with a human foot.

The anterior of the tracks thus appeared to indicate a tridactyl (dinosaurian) foot, but the long posterior extension was puzzling . . . I hypothesized that, rather than walking in the normal digitigrade (toe-walking) manner of most bipedal dinosaurs, they may have been made by a dinosaur that walked in a plantigrade or quasi-plantigrade fashion, placing weight on the soles of its feet and thereby creating elongated impressions. This would account for all of the features of the tracks, with the lack of distinct digit impressions being attributable to any of several possible phenomena, such as erosion, initially indistinct impressions (due to a firm substrate), or a combination of factors."


And here we see a picture from the paper illustrating the different types of dinosaur walking styles and the differing footprints they would leave behind. 

Kuban continues by writing the following: 


"That dinosaurs were capable of making elongated impressions by impressing their metatarsi into the sediment was confirmed by my documentation in 1982 and 1983 of another Paluxy site . . . On the West site were many typical tridactyl tracks and, more significantly, several trails containing elongate dinosaur tracks with rounded heels. Many of the elongate tracks on the West site showed three dinosaurian digits, whereas others in the very same trackways exhibited only indistinct digit impressions."


So basically, what we see in these Taylor Trail pictures are fossilized dinosaur footprints next to other dinosaur footprints. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

Another important detail about these trails is noted by Ronnie J. Hastings in a 1998 publication in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith:


". . . on the map of one of the creationist pro-mantrack investigators, a total of four prints on the Taylor trail were omitted. . . . if one interpreted these as mantracks, one of the omitted tracks would have its 'big toe' on the wrong side of the foot, as the outside digit of the dinosaur did leave a significant depression at this track's anterior."


It should go without saying that ignoring or hiding data that doesn't agree with your conclusion is not the way good science is done.

And, finally, Hastings points out another piece of evidence which is the final nail in the coffin of the ridiculous idea that these are human footprints:


"Most dramatic of all, however, was evidence that the Taylor tracks had, at some time subsequent to their making, been filled with a material whose geochemistry was sufficiently different from the outlying limestone to oxidize the surface to a reddish-brown color upon recent exposure or to simply contrast with a blue-gray color in an outline of the original depression. . . . At the anterior of each of the tracks of the Taylor trail, these colorations showed the unmistakable shape of at least one of the three tridactyl dinosaurian digits; sometimes two or all three were seen."


So basically, what he's saying is that there was a chemical reaction that made the footprints more pronounced and more easily visible—and once this happened, it became even more clear that they were dinosaur footprints. Here we see some pictures of the new-and-improved footprints from an article on As we can see, they are unmistakably of non-human origin:

It's also worth noting that what they describe on as "the strongest feature of the evidence" actually proves nothing: 


"Perhaps the strongest feature of the evidence presented by the Taylor Trail is the fact that it is composed of a sequence of fourteen tracks, consistent in length, in a consistent right-left pattern."


Really? We're supposed to be impressed by this? Look at the dinosaur tracks right next to it: We see the exact same thing: a sequence of left-right tracks in a consistent pattern. Humans are not the only bipedal creatures that walk or run like this, so this pattern alone doesn't prove that they were created by humans. 

Look at this simulation of a running dinosaur, created by Russell Fincher and Scott Simmons of Sickhead Games, and pay attention to where his feet are landing.


The left-right pattern of the Taylor Trail tracks is exactly the kind of thing that you would expect a bipedal dinosaur to leave behind, and the evidence viewed collectively makes abundantly clear that these are dinosaur footprints and nothing more. In the future, the only footprints I want to see from these creationists are leading into a public library.

By the way, I love that these creationists are suddenly interested in fossil evidence only when it can be used in a self-serving manner! "Fossil evidence that refutes my viewpoints? It's rubbish, it's junk science, it's untrustworthy...oh, what's that? You just found some fossil evidence that actually supports my viewpoints? All of a sudden it's admissible and it's perfectly valid."

There is a very obvious double standard at work here. In science, you don't just cherry-pick only the data that supports your position; instead, you look at the totality of the evidence and then you draw your conclusion. And the evidence taken collectively completely refutes the idea that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. 

The fossil evidence and the genetic evidence makes absolutely clear that the human species originated about 100,000 years ago, whereas hominids, generally, arose about 5 to 6 million years ago. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, originated about 245 million years ago and died out in the K/T extinction event 65 million years ago; again, this conclusion is supported by all of the fossil evidence. So there's a separation of about 60 million years between dinosaurs and the first human-like creatures. 

Creationists obviously claim that there is fossil evidence proving that humans and dinosaurs lived together, but as we've seen, this evidence just doesn't stand up to scrutiny: the evidence is either very unimpressive, misinterpreted dinosaur tracks, or the result of outright fabrication. It would be one thing if we started digging up well-preserved human skeletons in the Cretaceous snuggled up next to their pet dinosaur, but that's not all what's taking place; all the creationist can point to is a few meager scraps of trace evidence that doesn't actually show what they claim it does.

And even if dinosaurs and humans were found to overlap during a certain time period, this obviously wouldn't necessitate the truth of the Genesis account of creation and it wouldn't prove that the earth is 6,000 years old; it could simply be the case that certain dinosaurs survived the K/T extinction event and persisted until very recently. Or, alternatively, maybe humans simply originated much earlier than currently thought (although this is extremely unlikely given the overwhelming amounts of evidence to the contrary.)

Creationists, however, look at this issue a different way: As they frame it on, when it comes to humans living with dinosaurs, it's "Man's Word vs. God's Word."

And I have to say, putting myself in the ridiculous shoes of a fundamentalist, this is a brilliant way to frame it: "Who are you gonna trust? Fallible man? Or infallible God?"

In reality, however, it's not just man's word vs. God's word; instead, it's fact vs. fiction; it's evidence vs. mythology—and the creationist comes down on the wrong side of this debate. 

By the way, I can't believe there's actually a creation museum in this country. At this so-called museum, you can look at exhibits on the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark—and you can even buy a T-shirt in the gift shop which says "I survived being dropped on my head as a baby!"

They also try to make some kind of a "Gotcha!" point on this subject at the Institute For Creation Research—but what they really do is just spotlight their own ignorance and embarrass themselves. As they write


"According to evolution, dinosaurs dominated certain 'times' millions of years ago. But according to Scripture, all animals and plants had been created by the end of the sixth day. If the former is true, then dinosaur fossils should primarily be found by themselves. But if the latter is true, then dinosaur remains should be found mixed with those of birds, mammals, and all kinds of plants.

Dinosaur rock layers contain all kinds of creatures from all kinds of habitats, including those of both land and sea. Evolution can provide no explanation for this circumstance. It is completely to be expected, however, if these creatures were created all together and then deposited in catastrophic mudflows powered by the year-long, world-destroying Flood and its residual effects."


Where do we even begin with this? They have this moronic idea that since dinosaurs are described as "dominating" a certain time period, they therefore must have been virtually the only organisms present on land. As they put it, 


"If [evolution] is true, then dinosaur fossils should primarily be found by themselves."


What the hell are these people talking about? Apparently they're envisioning a world where it's just a barren, rocky wasteland—no plants, no insects, no smaller animals scurrying around—it was basically just rocks and dinosaurs and almost nothing else. There are zero biologists on the planet who say this is how things were back then. ZERO. Anybody who knows anything about ecosystems knows that, at any time, there's going to be a diversity of organisms that fill all kinds of environmental niches. How could a food chain even support dinosaurs if there are no other creatures around for them to eat?

This silly idea of theirs hinges on the word "dominant". Apparently they think describing dinosaurs as the dominant organisms is the same thing as describing them as the only organisms—but all biologists mean when they say this is that dinosaurs were the largest and most powerful organisms at that time who were very successful at spreading around the globe and diversifying.

It'd be like if somebody described humans as the dominant organism right now, and a creationist was like "Oh yeah? Well how do you explain birds? Checkmate!" No: not checkmate. More like: Check a fucking book, mate.

We're gonna finish with a crescendo of absurdity: creationist Joseph Mastropaolo arguing not just that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, but that humans very well may have domesticated dinosaurs. As he puts it


"'I can't imagine that they wouldn't be able to do it with [a dinosaur],' [Joseph Mastropaolo] said. 'We know that animal husbandry goes back thousands of years. Why not? If people found out that there was a dinosaur that they were able to feed and domesticate, why not expect that they used that knowledge to better their standard of living?'"


Well now I've heard it all, ladies and gentlemen. This is basically The Flintstone Hypothesis right here. I'm just imagining primitive humans with virtually no technology trying to herd a group of gigantic sauropods, trying to lasso a rope around the neck of a ten-ton triceratops. "No, you don't get it, dude: You've just gotta snatch the eggs from the nest and raise the T. rex babies as your own!" Understand that this is a vision of the world that millions of people actually hold.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's no good reason to believe that any of this took place. The evidence provided by creationists—whether biblical, cultural, archaeological, or fossil evidence—is extremely unconvincing and doesn't actually support this position. The scientific evidence makes absolutely clear that humans and dinosaurs were separated by over 60 million years of time, and any argument to the contrary is just a pathetic attempt to justify the nonsense written within the Bible.