"I'm simply stating that we see no animals, in the fossil record or without, that support the claim that one creature can turn into another. It's perfectly rational to say that one variation of the bear species can turn into another variation of the bear species. But there is no support for the claim that a bear can turn into another species, as Evolution says that they ought. "

As Bill D has already pointed out, you're either willfully misunderstanding what evolution is or you're having a pop. Either way, this isn't a debate if you can't recognize the difference between evolution and magic and insist on using the two concepts interchangeably.

Then define to me evolution! The Mirriam-Webster Dictionary says this:

"B. a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory"

Berkeley College gives this statement :

"large-scale evolution [is] the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations."
The ability of one creature (the evolutionary 'ancestor of all beings') to turn into another. That's what I'm talking about. Evolution. The ability of a monkey-like creature to gradually generate descendants that are humans *and* monkeys. The theory that enough mistakes in the genetic code can produce the remarkable and intricate human body that we see today. But that theory has no evidence in the fossil record! We see stasis in the fossil record, and we don't see any transitional forms. We ought to be able to go through the fossil record and say "These are the geological layers, all in order, these are the fossils, all in order, that prove that we have evolved."
But we can't even come close to saying that! Instead we see evidence of fully formed creatures (many of whom are still existent today), and no primitive ancestors.We see the same, fully-formed animals in all the layers. Clams, clams, ocean fossils, more clams..... If Evolution were true then we ought to find millions of transitional forms in the fossil record, all in corresponding layers. But we don't. Here's an illustration of the impossibility of the millions of years theory: A find in the Krukowski Quarry near Mosinee, Wisconsin. What was the find? Fossilized jellyfish.
Excuse me? Fossilized Jellyfish?
    Yeah. What's that all about? A jellyfish is compromised of about 95-98% of water. When a jellyfish is washed ashore, the water disappears and the body flattens.
Most fossils we find today are from hard-boned creatures, because bones fossilize easily. But jellyfish are so very soft that it's nearly impossible to fossilize one. Darwin once said "no organism wholly soft can be preserved". The Krukowski jellyfish prove him wrong.
Evolutionists say that the Krukowski jellyfish are part of the 'Cambrian layer', a time period they claim occurred about 510 million years ago. They say that the hordes of jellyfish we find in the quarry swam into the sandy shores of ancient Wisconsin as they migrated, hunted, and reproduced. Then they claim that strong tides (perhaps from storms) could have washed the jellyfish up on the shore, and, because no predators had evolved yet, the waves gradually buried them with coarse sand and they fossilized.
Creationists like myself propose something different.
Taking the evolutionary scenario, even if there weren't predators to eat the jellyfish as they lay on the shore, why didn't the jellyfish deflate in the sun and decay--instead of fossilizing?
Second, when a jellyfish washes up on land, it will pump its bell in an attempt to get back to the water, leaving little rings in the sand. There are no rings around the fossils in Mosinee.
Again, if the jellyfish were washed up onto sand (exposed to air), they would have lost their 90-odd percentage of water and shrunk. There is no fossil evidence of the jellyfish changing size.
This proves that the jellyfish were fossilized very rapidly, not over millions of years. How about Noah's flood?
Another thing that throws a wrench in the evolutionist's theory is that the fossils of the jellyfish are in rippled sand.
Waves create ripples as they come into shore. But when the waves go back out, they erase the ripples. The only place that the ripples aren't erased is underwater. Also, the only way the impression of a ripple can be fossilized is by another layer of fine silt coming to rest on top of it. This also can only happen rapidly.....underwater.
It's almost impossible for a jellyfish to fossilized. The evolutionary theory is given one final blow when we point out that the jellyfish were preserved in coarse sand--which would have allowed more time for sun and air exposure (thus causing further decay). The jellyfish are found in multiple different layers, thus causing the evolutionists to say that they must have been fossilized in different tropical storms over thousands of years. They're saying that the impossible happened seven times to create seven layers of jellyfish?? It's just that, impossible! It must be under exactly the right conditions: rapidly and underwater. Because of these factors, to say these jellyfish might have fossilized several times is unreasonable. The evolutionary model just doesn't fit the facts. But it does perfectly support the creation model--that they were all buried in a catastrophic, worldwide flood that quickly laid down the layers of sediment and fossilized the jellyfish underwater.
(as a side note, it's interesting how jellyfish don't seem to have changed much over 500-odd million years....while it seems that humans evolved from primitive to more sophisticated during that time.)

________________________________________________________

"Nature screams "Creator!" wherever we turn. The amazing detail of a leaf, a cell, a tree, an insect" ···

and a plague rat; a vampire bat; a malarial mosquito; a rabid dog; a dear old friend with Alzheimers or dementia...

Thanks, Iona ~~ you can stuff your Creator where he won't see too much of his 'Creation'!


"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12)
When Adam sinned against God, the world became a corrupt place, and man has been 'degenerating' since then. We are all suffering because of the fall of man. When God created the world, it was "Very good". But it's not that way any more. There is still beauty, but everything is now tainted by sin, nothing escaped. God gave the commandment to Adam and Eve that they would "surely die" if they ate the forbidden fruit. When they listened to the devil and chose to ignore God's command, He followed through with His punishment, and the world continues to die, both spiritually and physically. This is a curse, but it is also a blessing, in that death also brought God's chosen people into redemption by the death atonement of Christ on the cross. If an individual is regenerate by the ransom of Christ's blood, then death for them is the final enemy, and they are delivered up to the merciful reward of the Lord, in Heaven.
But I know that the 'problem of evil' is going to be brought up when I post this, so let me address it proactively.
The 'problem of evil' is this:
"If God exists, why does He allow His creation to suffer physical and moral evil? He either must not be powerful enough to deal with evil, or else He does not care enough to deal with it."
This 'problem' was first phrased by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century. But it's not a new question. Almost all humans ask it at one point or another: "How could a good and loving God allow evil in the world? Is He not powerful enough to eradicate it? Or is he not good at all?" They wonder how Christians can believe in a God who is all-good but also all-powerful, and yet there still be evil in the world.
This argument boils down to three points.
1. God is completely good.
2. God is completely powerful.
3. Evil exists/happens.

Premises 1 and 2 are not contradictory to each other until we combine them with premise 3. It is crucial to the athiest/unbeliever's case against Christianity to assert that there is evil in the world and to be able to point to something and have the right to evaluate it as an instance of evil. But first, you must define evil. Define good!
So, what do you define as good? What is good? Majority opinion? Majority benefit? What is your foundation for believing in goodness--or in evil? What is evil, anyway, from an atheistic viewpoint?
I can answer the problem of evil, but for the atheist there is no such thing, because there is no evil, and there is no good. The fact that you are even in this argument proves my point. I will elaborate more on that later, after I get a few responses.
________________________________________________________

A pastor friend of mine once commented, "Some hard-charging evangelists have their minds so set on getting themselves, and everybody they can harass into Heaven that they, themselves, are no earthly good for anything."

Iona, Pete, look up Matthew, 25:35-40.

Read it carefully.

Study it.

Then, go live it.

And stop pestering people until you learn to live as Jesus says you should live (see above Scripture).

Don Firth

Don, you are so right. One of the things that I absolutely abhor about the so-called "Christian" culture in America (and in other places) is that so many people call the name....and then live lives that clearly state that they don't care. They preach, but don't act. They don't live out the faith they claim to have. This is a tragedy, it is heresy, and they are misrepresenting Christ by calling themselves by His name and yet not obeying His commandments. The Bible says "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt has lost it's savor....it shall be good for nothing but to be trodden under the foot of men". (Matthew 5:15). If Christians do not live out their profession and obey the commands of Scripture, they are good for nothing. They give Christianity a dirty name and a horrible reputation. Most people who call themselves Christians aren't Christians at all. (See explanation here )


But I disagree when you propose that a true Christian will not take a stand for what they believe. You say that I ought to read Matthew 25 carefully and then live it. I agree with that.
But the Bible also says to be "Ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you" (1 Peter 13:5). A Christian will live out their faith, and that includes being able and ready to answer the claims of opposing worldviews such as evolution. It would not be right for a Christian to go about whamming people over issues like evolution, and yet not live out the love of Christ, but it *would* be acceptable for a Christian, who ministers to their fellow men with kindness and a servant's heart, to stand up and make a testimony that the Bible is exactly as it says it is, and that the world was created just as the Bible says, in six literal days, created by the word of the Lord.
I'm not trying to harass anybody into heaven. I can't get anyone into heaven, period. Only God can do that. I can only give testimony to Him and His word, and He must do the rest. Your eternal destiny is ultimately between you and the Almighty, but that doesn't mean that Christians ought to be silent about the gospel, in fact they are commanded *not* to be.
___________________________________________________

For example, here is the complete transition from a dog-like (actually more pig-like) ancestor to modern cetaceans in 11 small steps. Iona will surely point out that his means there are 10 missing links.

http://evolutionfun.com/images/whales/caldogram.gif


This is a drawing. Are there fossils to support these drawings? I'd love to see pictures of them. You see, Evolutionists often will draw pictures of what evolution *should* look like, but they're just pictures--artist's reproductions of what ought to be found in the fossil record, but aren't. If there were, our museums would be have them on huge displays with neon lights flashing above them. But they haven't found any. And it's my contention that there's a reason for that.
When we look into the average high school textbook, we see drawings like Haeckle's embryo drawings. But the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was dreamed up by Haeckle before modern technology like ultrasound, and now we know that his theory is completely bogus. But they still publish it in textbooks! And the concept that humans aren't really humans until such-and-such a stage has lead to many horrific things that devalue human life.
________________________________________________________

Well, since its been raised again I went to the the trouble of discovering whether psalm 22 is a perfect description of a crucifixion of anybody years before crucifixion had been invented: the answer is no, in my view. There is nothing at all to suggest crucifixion - just a much more general torture that applies to crucifixion plus dozens of other imaginative schemes to inflict pain on some victim......Hardly the sign of someone who insists on the literal translation of the original, I would say, and not a good demonstration that the original psalm referenced crucifixion.

I didn't reference that part of the chapter. I was talking about the whole chapter. Let me compare the gospels to Psalm 22.
   
All who see me mock me;they hurl insults,
shaking their heads: "He trusts in the Lord;
let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him." (Psalm 22:7-8)

"And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads,
and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the temple,
and buildest it in three days, Save thyself,
and come down from the cross. (Mark 15:29-30)

And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also
with them derided him, saying, He saved others;
let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. (Luke 23 :35)
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Dogs have surrounded me; [Roman Soldiers, perhaps?]
a band of evil men has encircled me,[two thieves crucified with
Jesus; one on the right hand, one on the left] (Psalm 22:16a)
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith,
And he was numbered with the transgressors."(Mark 15:28)

I can count all my bones; [bones are broken during crucifixion, typically] (Psalm 22:17)

They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing. (Psalm 22:18)
And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments,
casting lots upon them, what every man should take.(Mark 15:24)

That's simply comparing a few verses of Psalm 22 with the gospels--and I left out the 'they pierced my hands and feet' because I don't have the time at the moment to go look up the original Greek. Seems to me that there are a few too many 'coincidences' here to not be fulfillment of prophesy--and that's only one of dozens of fulfilled prophesy in Scripture.

________________________________________________________

Your statement: " But there are very few actual documents/parchments copied from the originals. Those are the true word of God, and the 'translations' are only the word of God insofar as they are true (verbal plenary) to the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. The "Other books" so called are perhaps interesting accounts, but they are not the inspired Word of God as the Bible is. The Bible alone is perfect, it is the ultimate authority, and, as I've said before, an ultimate authority can't be judged by something else or else it isn't ultimate--whatever it is judged by is!

IS a perfect example of that circular reasoning where your 'proof' is assumed by your very statement! You are defending your **belief** in the Bible by assuming that you can't be wrong...because the Bible can't be wrong.--- and round & round we go.

So there are no absolutes, is that what you are saying? If there are absolutes, then there must be an ultimate authority to validate them. I have one--the God of the Bible. He is the ultimate authority.
BUT, evolutionists don't have an ultimate, that I know of. The human mind, maybe? Humanists/evolutionists/athiests have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to even have a foundation for reasoning. Without borrowing Christian presuppositions, you have no basis for argument. After all, how do you know that there is truth? What is eternal? How can you trust your mind? How do you know that the future will be like the past?

I don't understand in order to believe: I believe in order to understand. Yes, I have faith, I have belief--but it's a reasonable faith.Without my faith, I could not understand anything, I could not carry on a conversation, I could not experiment with science.
A person will interpret evidence by what their presuppositions are. I look at a fossil site and see evidence for the flood--evolutionists look at the same fossil site and see evidence for evolution. "A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life, etc. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs." (Greg Bahnsen)
One of the biggest proofs of the Christian faith is that if Christianity isn't true, you can't prove anything at all. To put that in more philosophical terms "Christianity is the transcendental precondition of intelligibility".

Materialistic Atheists don't believe in God, don't believe that man has a soul, and don't believe in an afterlife. If those premises are true, then you couldn't know that it was true. You couldn't prove anything at all. Let me be clear:
All science rests on inductive inference. I mean all science--biology, math, astronomy, physiology, everything! Inductive inference could also be phrased "the future will be like the past". You get up in the middle of the night and walk around. You stub your toe. You feel pain. So tonight when you get up to walk around, you will take care not to stub your toe because you believe that it will hurt again like it did last night. That's an inductive inference. You make speculations on the future because of occurrences in the past. But for an atheist, you can't know that if you stub your toe tonight it will hurt! You have no way of knowing that. You have the past, but you can't rely on the past because an atheist says that we live in a random universe. Just because the observable past has produced pain when you stubbed your toe does not mean that tonight it will hurt--in the future a stubbed toe may produce the thrill of a lifetime. You can't know! An atheist has no foundation to conduct science, to reason, or to speculate, because they have absolutely no assurance that A will proceed B tomorrow. A might proceed B today, but tomorrow A might proceed G8zy. I repeat: You have no foundation of your own to believe that the future will be like the past. You have no foundation to understand our world. You have no foundation to go to the science lab today and conduct scientific experiments, because past knowledge is useless to the future, and the future is completely unpredictable. Only when you borrow from the Christian worldview of the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past) can you make any progress in anything.
________________________________________________________

It IS possible to accept 'what is' without assuming 'intelligent design'... I do it every day!

See my last response. Yes, you can accept 'what is', but you do so only on borrowed terms. You have no foundation of your own. You have no reason to rely on inductive inference, because you have no basis for it!

_________________________________________________________

nowhere is there a requirement to assume anything in particular about an 'original cause'-- that is merely an abstract concept. We DO NOT KNOW where or how "causes start", and deciding that something must be named "God" is simply a personal opinion...

So you have no basis of faith, that's what you're saying. You're basically saying "There is no proof that there was no cause, but I refuse to believe that the God of the Bible was the uncaused cause. Instead I'd rather believe in an unknown cause"

"Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too {l} superstitious.
For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:22-24)

___________________________________________________________

Well, Iona, careful who you choose to befriend. Pete pounces in triumphant accord on snippets of your daft post but let me tell you he doesn't know what he's on about. He refuses to read Origin yet he jumps in with you on the "transitional forms" nonsense. To be honest, your crackpot notions simply reveal that there is insufficient between you and anyone who has even the faintest regard for science to have a constructive conversation. I once saw a drawing of a bear that was the exact intermediate between Yogi and Boo-boo, so that proves you're wrong. That's about the highest intellectual level you could manage, I suppose. Let's drop God and talk Jellystone.

I haven't said anything to Pete or about Pete. I haven't even acknowledged his presence until now, because what good would it do? I'm not out to 'join forces' and gang up on anybody. I'm just here to give an explanation for what I believe and why I believe it. Pete can do the same if he wishes, and if he chooses to use some of my writings as a springboard, that's his business.
But I wish you would stop the stream of insults (that are not taken) and actually discuss the evidence with me. Let's drop the slurs and talk epistemology. Your resorting to trying to make me mad with all your name calling and insults suggests that you don't have any way to answer my arguments!

___________________________________________________________

Unlike religion, we don't have any direct evidence that telepathy is impossible. But virgin birth? Raising the dead? Son of God? Turning water into wine? Splitting the Red Sea? Creating the earth in seven days? Creating the earth at all?? The list goes on and on.

Precisely why they are called 'miracles'. Supernatural. Of course it's impossible--humanly speaking. "For with God nothing shall be impossible." (Luke 1:37)

_____________________________________________________________

Raising the dead? (Medical trick)

Doctors do that NOW, thousands of times a day.

Son of God?

Assuming there is a God, the Son ain't much of a leap.

Turning water into wine? (chemistry trick)

A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago.

Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick)

Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind.

Creating the earth in seven days?

Define day.

"Rasing the dead? Doctors do that now, thousands of times a day".
By definition (in the Bible), death occurs when the soul departs the body. These everyday 'raisings' are not miracles like what we see in Scripture. In Scripture we're talking souls that were already in heaven or @#!*% (we don't know what the spiritual state of many of the biblical subjects were), being brought back into the bodies. What we see today is just appearance of death, and then being revived. We don't see (as we do in the Bible) men being in the grave and dead for four days, then being called forth and actively walking out of the grave.

"Turning water into wine? Chemistry trick. A bit of kool aid and 100 proof vodka would have easily fooled a wedding guest of 2000 years ago."
But the Bible (John 2) gives no indication that Jesus ever even laid hands on the jars. He simply told the servants (who were present the entire time) to fill the containers with water and to carry them out to the wedding feast. Plus, He didn't exactly have about twelve cases of Vodka at his disposal (and Kool Aid didn't even exist yet) to slyly empty into the water. The Scripture says that "They have no wine". There was no alcohol present at the time of the miracle.


"Splitting the Red Sea? (meteorology trick) Moses times the escape for a windy day with just the right wind."
Do you really mean to say that a nice little wind could part the Red sea and provide dry ground for the Israelites to walk on, as the Bible says happened?

"Creating the earth in seven days? Define 'day'"
'day' in Hebrew is the word 'Yom'. It can mean a literal 24 hour day, or it can mean a period of time. But in Genesis, whenever the word 'yom' is used along with the words "evening and morning" or 'third day', etc. it always means a literal twenty four hour day. Anything else would have been destructive to the life that God had just created. Just think, if the 'days' of Creation Week had been long periods of time, then there would have been long periods of darkness. Once the plants were created, they would have quickly died because of lack of photosynthesis for food! Only a literal 24 hour day fits into the creation account.

But you as an atheist have no basis for calling anything impossible. For since we live in a random universe, you can't know that tomorrow is going to be like today. For all you know, the miracles of the Bible were just random acts of the universe. They shouldn't even be a problem for you!
_________________________________________________________________


Well, at least I got an answer: I find it absolutely mind-boggling, but it's an answer.

"If a friend of yours told you that his mule had just spoken to him, and given him a message from God, what would you think, and how would you reply?
I would respond by going to the Bible and seeing if what the donkey said was in accordance with the Scriptures. If not, then it was not a message from God, but it could have a number of different explanations.

If a friend of yours told you that his plans for the day included killing his child, because God told him to, what would you think, and how would you respond?

See my response above."
Yes, that is my answer. Well, It's a very simplified version of my answer. Taking the child-killing scenario, it's a 99% chance that the 'word from God' was not a word from God at all. Lots of people get counseled today by their 'pastors' to have an abortion, and there have been many times when a 'pastor' has told a mother that 'God told him' that she ought to kill her baby. Now that is an obvious breach of the Bible, because it's very clear that "Thou shalt not murder"(Deuteronomy 5:17). So I'd very very VERY likely find that 'word from God' to be not a 'word of God' at all. For instance, Jephthah in Judges 11:30-36 told God that he would sacrifice whatever or whoever first came to meet him if God would give him victory over the Ammonites. God did, and who came to meet Jephthah? His only child. But instead of obeying God's law of 'thou shalt not murder', he chose to keep his word. He held his promise in more importance than the law of God. And that was sin. I don't condone what he did.
_____________________________________________________________________

You're outnumbered, the pair of you. In the meantime, you are doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on. Sorry that reality isn't good enough for you, but you know, one of you can be laughed at, a few of you can be tolerated but an international commune?

I don't think you have much of an argument here. Again, your resorting to insults suggests that you can't do any other!
My being outnumbered is not a problem to my argument. After all, there was a point in time when the majority believed that the planets all revolved around the earth, and that didn't make it true.
"You're doing a disservice to the vast majority of people comfortable to be called Christians, as their use of god as a metaphor is debased by idiots intent on clinging to the bible as an instrument to play their fantasy on."
Oh? Barring the fact that I have yet to meet a true Christian who calls God a metaphor, how is my defending the truth of the Scriptures a disservice to Christianity? You seem to be implying that I can believe what I want, but I should keep my trap shut and let people criticize it and try to tear it down. If that's the case, then why don't you do the same? Why do you find it worthwhile to type on this forum? I have a reason to believe what I do. But you don't. you don't even have a reason to believe--anything! For the atheist, there is no such thing as reason unless you borrow from the Christian worldview.....but I shall address that in another post. Tell me, are there absolutes? Is there such a thing as good and bad, and if so, how do you define them?

_________________________________________________________

Iona - all you have to do to silence the doubters is find a fossil in the wrong place. Find the fossil of a horse in Cretaceous deposits; find a bony fish in the Burgess Shale, find a monkey in the Solnhofen limestone, find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs. Find the bones and silence the doubters. Find body fossils that prove you are right.

Scientists have found so much evidence for Creation that I couldn't fit it all in this forum. Look at the jellyfish, up there towards the top of my post. That's one.

There have been trees found in multiple layers of sediment, that is, one tree going through several different layers, each one supposedly having been laid down over millions of years. How does that work?

"Find a rhino amongst the dinosaurs".

How about people? Would you accept creationism if we had evidence that men lived alongside of dinosaurs? Forget something as trivial as a rhino with the dinosaurs, I think we ought to go straight to the evolutionary impossible--that of coexistence between humans and giant sauropods.

Aha, but we do have evidence of just such a thing.

The word "dinosaur" wasn't invented until 1842, coined by Sir Richard Owen. It means "terrible reptile" in Latin. The Chinese do not have a word like 'dinosaur', but they do have a word "kong long" which means 'terrible dragon'. They'd been using this word for years before people dug up a dinosaur bone in Europe. We read a lot of old stories in many cultures about terrible dragons--could it be that 'dragons' and 'dinosaurs' are really the same thing?

Ancient legends about dragons and men's encounters with them are found all over the world. So have images of creatures resembling dinosaurs/dragons. For instance, there are images of dragons have been found on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon, in Egyptian hieroglyphs, Ethiopian sketches, on Viking ships, in Aztec temples, on cliffs above the Mississippi river, and on bones carved by the native Inuit peoples of Alaska. The Welsh flag still bears the bold design of a dragon. China is very well known for it's use of dragons in its cultural art. So it's not just a local theory that dragons existed, it's a widespread history. The book of Job in the Bible talks of several different kinds of 'dragons', both on land (Behemoth) and in the sea (Leviathan).

A few things to look up and see for yourself are the the Natural Bridges Monument in Utah (underneath one of the rock bridges is a drawing that appears to be a dinosaur, drawn most likely by natives between 400 A.D. to 1300 A.D.), Hava supai Canyon in Arizona (where there is a picture of an animal standing on its hind legs--resembling a dinosaur), San Rafael Reef in Utah (where there is a large carving of something that resembles a Pterosaur. About 200 miles away from that canyon, fossil tracks that may have been made by a Pterosaur, have been discovered), and some figurines from Acambaro, Mexico. Over 33 thousand ceramic figures were found there, and many look like what today we would call dinosaurs.

Just because we don't find dinosaurs fossilized in the same locality as humans doesn't prove anything. If you lived at the same time as dinosaurs, would you want to live in the same neighborhood? If we're going to take Beowulf's word for it, no. And neither did people before and after the flood. Just because humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time doesn't mean that they lived close to each other. Evolutionary scientists date geologic layers in which we find dinosaur bones by the time period in which that dinosaur supposedly lived (well, that's what many scientists say--and then they turn around and say that we can tell the age of the bones by the rocks in which they are found. Rather circular if you ask me). And then they date other layers differently just because we find human fossils (like 'Neanderthal' ). I say that it's not that they lived millions of years apart, they just lived in different parts of the world when the flood occurred.
__________________________________________________________________________

How do you surmise that a dead cowboys leg petrified in his boot is a fossil?

"Fossil: mineralized or otherwise preserved remains or traces (such as footprints) of animals, plants, and other organisms." --Wikipedia glossary of geological terms
Fossilization is when something is buried quickly by lots of mud and water with just the right cementing agent. Over a little time, the minerals in the mud substance will replace the minerals in the decaying bone. Eventually only rock, in the perfect shape of the bones, will be left.
Generally when we speak of 'fossils' today, we think 'old'--whether 'old' is thousands of years or millions of years. But fossilization is simply the occurrence of petrification.

____________________________________________________________________________

There's plenty of evidence of wear and tear on fossils, and plenty have been eroded out of one age of sediment and redeposited; the are called 'reworked' fossils. There is one case where we think a Jurassic ammonite was fossilised, weathered out and was then eaten by a dinosaur for use as a gastrolith, and after the dinosaur died or coughed it back up it was reburied in the later sediments. Wonderful!
While I haven't studied that particular case, I do know that seeing a little wear and tear on a few fossil wouldn't completely destroy my worldview. The flood was a long and very chaotic event--Noah and his family were in the ark for over a year, so that gives a lot of time for the fossil bones to have been tossed about, shifted and replaced into a different layer of sediment. It could have happened after the flood, for that matter. No problem for the Creationist worldview.


♣Iona