Lies and misinformation. None of the sources are reputable nor do the claims constitute evidence.

It's creationist BS. In other words, THIS TROPE.

That does nothing to refute the claim. Your counter argument is essentially fingers-in-ears.

Basically the old fall back of "It's only evidence if it agrees with what I believe."

Two websites, Godsaidmansaid.com and answersingenesis.org, offer scientific explanations and cite sources of evidence. Though most will treat their creationist position as grounds for dismissal rather than try to find a valid reason.

A-HEM. http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Man_and_dinosaurs_coexisted http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html

Man, the things I miss...

Okay. "Compythysaurus" isn't even a proper dinosaur name. It probably refers to Compsognathus. The lizard like animal described does not match what we know about such theropods anyway. Science Marches On plays hell on Creationist Dogma and lies.

Pteranodon in Egypt? Triceratops in France? Plesiosaurs in the Pacific? Misplaced Wildlife to the extreme. Further, Pteranodon was a sea going fish eater, it'd have little to no interest in spices. Triceratops are herd animals, so a knight finding one alone (let alone killing it dragon-style) is ridiculous beyond words. Plesiosaur "sightings" play up their swan like necks, something their musculuature could not support nor could their vertebra allow them to move that fluidly.

Appeals to authority are just that and thus easily ignored as non-evidence.

Kendai, projection is an ugly thing.

Creationism has never published anything of value. No scientific journals, no discoveries, not break throughs, no peer review. Any idiot can make a website. It's failed in the scientific literature, it's failed in courts mutliple times due to a blatant re-naming campaign ("Creationism" replaced with "Intelligent Design" in Of Pandas and People, the Creationist and Intelligent Design textbook).

I can clearly call creationists lying because they've been convicted of it. Multiple times.

You want Creatsionism to be taken seriously as a science? Pointed to something published in a peer reviewed journal, or some medidical or scientific break through that uses creation theory to make human lives better in an objective physical way?

Furbearingbrick gave some good links. I'd throw in Creationtheory.org, which breaks down all the common arguments and has example debates...er...dismantelings of creation theory in action.

If some dinosaurs somehow persisted into modern times, it still wouldn't confirm Creationism (any more than living cœlacanths confirm Creationism). All that would mean is that it's hard to judge the date of extinction due to the haphazard process of fossilization, which we already know.

Palaeontology is the British spelling, I'm British and if I am not mistaken I was the person who suggested the name for this trope back when it was a YKTTW. At least I think I was, it was either me or another Brit. Anyway someone made the suggestion with the British spelling and it just stuck.

There was a lot of volcanic activity towards the end of the cretaceous, especially in India, IIRC.

Frankly, creationism in general is in itself a Did Not Do The Research.

Not really, its simply not accepting what the scientists tell them. A tad Naive, i'll grant, but frankly, if you throw God into the equation, nothing is for certain.

I'm more referring to their supposed arguments against evolution, all of which tend to be horribly misinformed, outdated, or simply wrong.

Most of them, I would say. Some of them aren't paleontology-related.