exista indicii care sugereaza ca dupa potop clima s-a racit considerabil peste tot.Dinozaurii de pe arca (probabil foarte tineri)s-au trezit intr-un context climateric cu totul schimbat si, fiind incapabili sa se adapteze la schimbarile de temperatura si vegetatie,
Loooll pai nici macar nu se stie exact cand a avut loc acest potop, si deja creationistii fac afirmatii legate de clima? 
Dar daca dupa creationisti, dinozaurii nu s-au adaptat, adica nu au evoluat, asta inseamna ca alte animale care traiau in clima tropicala au reusit sa se adapteze, adica sa evolueze? 
For many years claims were made by strict creationists that human footprints or "giant man tracks" occur alongside dinosaur tracks in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose Texas. If true, such a finding would dramatically contradict the conventional geologic timetable, which holds that humans did not appear on earth until over 60 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct. However, the "man track" claims have not stood up to close scientific scrutiny, and have been abandoned even by most creationists. The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate (metatarsal) dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and some doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter on loose blocks of rock). This Web site provides a collection of articles reviewing the history of the controversy and evidence involved, articles on other alleged out-of-order fossils and artifacts, and information and links on dinosaur tracks in general.
Luat de pe o pagina absolut adorabila despre aberatiile creationistilor stiintifici. Pentru o portie buna de ras, intrati: aici
Iar AICI gasiti linkuri la mai multe studii legate de acele asa zise urme umane alaturi de urme de dinozauri. Enjoy! 
Iata alte idei minunate ale Dr. Carl Baugh, 
Some of Carl Baugh's more outlandish claims, contained in his videotape Panorama of Creation, are as follows:
1. Before the Flood, the earth was surrounded by hydrogen which was so cold it was metallic and this collapsed when God shouted. This is nonsense. It is impossible that such a surrounding cloud of hydrogen could ever be cold enough, especially in such proximity to the earth.
2. People could hear the 'singing' of the stars before the Flood. Apparently the metallic hydrogen (which could not have existed) enabled this to happen.
3. People could 'feel' the time before the Flood.
4. People can affect radioactive decay rates with their minds. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
5. Eggs do not hatch outside the earth's magnetic field. Baugh claimed that NASA did an experiment demonstrating this. Absolute nonsense.
6. Granites (which contain radioactive elements) are not exploding because they are in 'perfect balance'. However, radioactive elements do not normally 'explode' of course - that requires very special conditions which are not easy to arrange (if it were otherwise, every terrorist group would have atomic bombs!). Even pure radioactive elements will not 'explode', so the fact that granite does not has nothing to do with 'perfect balance' of the granite.
7. He argues that, in some way, radioactive minerals align themselves with the magnetic field, which is nonsense.
8. He says that people were smarter before the Flood, attributing this to a supposedly higher oxygen pressure. There is absolutely no evidence that high oxygen levels would make people more intelligent. He talked nonsense about 'four molecules of oxygen', linking this to his subsequent theories about oxygen saturation. Furthermore, there is no basis for his extravagant claims about the curative effects of high oxygen pressures - if it worked as he claims, paraplegics would be lining up to be treated (many hospitals have suitable hyperbaric chambers).
Deci, dinozauri contemporani cu oamenii? :rot:
jeeezaaaasss... chiar pot crede unii asa ceva?
Iar legat de Hava Supai....
These sorts of claims are easy to deal with. For a start, the picture of the pictograph says a great deal. Firstly, it is reproduced without context; we are not shown other figures from the same rock-face or others from the canyon, against which it might be possible to evaluate it. Is the picture reproduced the right way up? Even allowing that it is, what does it show? There is an outline that somewhat resembles a Tyrannosaurus, but there are problems with the tail, the length of the neck and the lack of front legs. The idea that Tyrannosaurs dragged their tails along the ground may have been current in the 1920s, but it has not been believed for many years now, so if the pictogram really does show a giant meat-eating dinosaur, we need to explain why it is depicted in an incorrect position. A more economical hypothesis is that the pictogram shows something else that bears a slight resemblance to the way Tyrannosaurs were once thought to have looked. It is certainly not evidence that the artist had seen a living Tyrannosaur.
Iata si poza cu pricina,
scoasa din context bineinteles, pe tot internetul asta nu am reusit sa gasesc o poza cu acesrt asa zis dinozaur in interactiune cu un om. So... mai ai si alte de astea Zarah? 8)
, atat am sa iti spun: 