Science says -

"Dinosaurs (from Greek: δεινός terrible or potent, and σαύρα lizard) are a diverse group of animals that were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous (about 65 million years ago), "

"Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens,[3][4] Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man")[5] are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago."

Creationists say - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080620161223AAm1e72

That yahoo answers lists the creationist answer as the best is a worry. In fact googling [Dinosaur + man]  in various combos gives very little in the way of a scientific view.

Is this evidence of regression? 

Sure but try the google search. It's a worrying trend.

Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 12:18pm:


The did not live within walking distance of Noah's house.

Grey wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 11:55am:








Poppycock.

Where is the conclusive proof for the veracity of those dates of when dinosaurs lived ???

There is NO conclusive proof for the veracity of those dates.


Google;




The radiometric dating of rocks and fossils to ascertain their age, is 'witchdoctor' science.

A scientist sent rocks from the lava dome of Mount St. Helens, which erupted in 1980, to be dated using radiometric dating.

These lava dome rocks were rated in age, from 350,000 yrs old to 2.8 million years old.


e.g.

"Why does the lava dome provide an opportunity to test the accuracy of radioisotope dating? There are two reasons. First, radioisotope dating methods can be used mainly on volcanic (igneous) rock, such as dacite. (Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock cannot be directly dated radioisotopically.) Second, the date of formation of the dacite is known. (This is one of the rare instances in which, to the question, "Were you there?", we can answer-"Yes, we were!") It is widely assumed that the radioisotope clock is set at zero and starts ticking when igneous rock solidifies from a molten state.
....In June of 1992, Dr. Austin collected a 15 lb. block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed, sieved, and processed into a whole rock powder as well as four mineral concentrates. These were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA, a high quality, professional radioisotope dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that "low argon" should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St. Helens and was only 10 years old. The results of this analysis, shown in Figure 2 (below), were recently published.1
....What can one observe about these results? First and foremost is simply that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been "zero argon" indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 0.35-2.8 million years! Why is this?"
http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 2:32pm:

A point I have made several times as well, but the clowns whose posts equate Christianity with Creationism ignore the truth because it spoils their fun....

Duh, duh, duh!!!!!




The scientific process folks....






+++


ABOVE, I present an example of 'the scientific process'; see the details in my post, #6

But not one of you atheists, who claim to worship at the alter of the scientific process, even recognise what the scientific process is!

Isn't 'the scientific process', the use of the rigour of truth in analysis of evidence, to prove or to disprove a hypothesis ???

In post #6 above, i give an example, where a scientific process PROVES that the use of radiometric dating, to determine the age of rocks, fails to reliably determine the correct age of those rocks.

AND NOT ONE OF YOU, IS WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT TRUTH.

Yadda wrote on Aug 15^th, 2011 at 3:12pm:


1. That's why you can't rely on just one (radiometric) dating procedure.

2. It's outside the establish age range for the technique(K-Ar dating).  The whole idea of using that particular technique to date a recent rock is ludicrous given that it's only used for ancient rocks, and it has a standard error of +/- 50 million years for the oldest rocks. Realistically the youngest item that can be dated with that technique is around 100,000 years, but nobody in their right mind would use it for that purpose. At 500,000 years it's is probably more accurate.

The whole test was contrived to attempt to prove a creationist agenda. Generally those technicans carrying out radiometric dating use a variety of techniques. (They use their brains)

It's little bit like using pyrometry to measure the the temperature of liquid nitrogen. It just can't be done.

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

I hope you're just cutting and pasting that article, Yadda. I'd be very disappointed if you were that dishonest.