Did man and the dinosaurs co-exist?

[David]

IMO the simple answer to this question is no, if indeed we're talking about dinosours as most people think of them. There are many species still around today that have been on the earth since the time of the great dinosour periods. Simple bacteria that has existed since the dawn of life on the planet still exists today. 
I agree with Ray in that creationists have it all wrong, very very wrong, and so do evolutionists. Richard Dawkins has been debated by people in his own field and had his theories severely put to the test. Ironically he's described as a "dinosour" in his field by some of his contempries, simply because he hangs on to Dawinist evolution with the same fanatical religious ferver that some of the creationist heretics do that he despises so much.
There was so much that Darwin didn't know that science does know now that totally disproves evolution by natural selection of mutations. Darwin knew nothing about mutation. Darwin believed in adaptation and he based his theory on the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics which preceded Darwin's theory. Most modern secular biologists refute evolution by mutation and natural selection. HJ Muller, the worlds leading expert on cell mutation, a Nobel prize winner wrote "Mutations in species are of a random nature, over 99% are harmful to a species. Mutations occur when DNA makes a mistake in replicating itself. For nature to select a mutation in order to evolve and benefit a species, the mutation would have to be beneficial. To suggest the evolution of all species has come about through random mutations would mean that the universe would have to be quadrillions of years old."
Ernst Myor, also Nobel prize winner "It is a considerable strain on ones credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as sensory organs could be improved by random mutations. Imagine the eye mutating? Would it make it better? Science has yet to document a single mutation in any living species that made an improvement. Every single mutant in nature is invariably so damaged by the mutation, as to conclude it is impossible for such and organism or species to reproduce and achieve further complexity."
Julian Huxley, regarded in the science community as the worlds leading expert on evolutionary development wrote when giving an analogy on how mutation would have to work in order to achieve improved complexity in a species. "In horses one would have to breed 1 million strains in order to get two favorable mutations. Up to 1000 to the millionth power to produce just two mutations. That number becomes 1 with 3 million zeros written after it. No rational thinker could ever conceive of anything so remote happening, and yet through the god of time, Darwinian evolutionists believe not only that it could happen, but that it has. If given enough time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable a certainty. However, we now know something which Darwin did not. We know that the universe is finite. We know it had a beginning. We know its only just under 16 billion years old, and so quadrillions of generations of mutated species simply could not have existed. Its interesting that the more complexity biologists discover in life forms, the more they wait with baited breath for the cosmologists to come up with a new older age for the universe. The truth is that species have evolved through punctuated equilibrium, a theory expounded by one of the greatest scientists of our time, Steven J Gould."
Steven J Gould said in his debate with Richard Dawkins at Oxford "The fossil record simply does not support Darwin's theories, nor does it support your theories Professor. In order for random mutation to evolve via natural selection, there would have to be trillions of failed organisms of varying complexity and size in the fossil record. We've found most of the earths Coal, Gas, Oil, Gold and other precious metals, we have millions of successful fully formed, fully functioning examples of extinct species in the fossil record, yet the trillions of mutated species are missing. Factor into the time required the mass extinctions this planet has undergone several times during its life time because of cataclysmic events. The evidence is at best thin, at worst none existent. No professor, the facts point to huge inexplicable jumps in species development and complexity, most often than not with no overlap between one species becoming extinct, and another seemingly related more complex species appearing on earth."

Anyway, enough about evolution, and I'm sure Ray will expound on this issue during the conference.
According to palientologists there hasn't been a dinosour on the earth for at least one hundred million years. According to anthropologists the modern human species is no older than 100,000 years.
Personally I get tired of being told by both religious people and scientists alike that the two have to be mutually exclusive to one another. I am greatly interested in the earths history, cosmology, astro physics etc, I find these sciences fascinating. I've yet to see or hear any scientific discovery that would either contradict or challenge my faith. Actually most of whats been discovered and proven strengthens my belief in God, makes God even more awe inspiring to me than I could have imagined. I see no conflict of interest in proven scientific discovery and being a Christian.
I believe that God created in six days, the Bible says He did. However its not clear whether those "days" were 24 hour days, or whether they were consecutive days. Thats what I see in scripture, I may be flat out wrong and Ray will cover this stiff at the conference.
To all the "6000 year young earth" creationists I would say this. There is only one way they have reached their conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old, and thats by tracing the genealogies in the Bible. There is not s shred of credible scientific evidence to support their claim. They've traced the Biblical genealogies and invented a science to fit 6000 years. Well Paul says its useless, causes disputes and division, foolish, unprofitable.
1 Tim 1:4 Neither give heed to fables (G3454 μῦθος muthos moo'-thos Perhaps from the same as G3453 (through the idea of tuition); a tale, that is, fiction ("myth"): - fable). and endless genealogies (G1076 γενεαλογία genealogia ghen-eh-al-og-ee'-ah From the same as G1075; tracing by generations, that is, "genealogy": - genealogy.), which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

Paul goes on in the next verse as part of the very same admonition to say; Titus 3:10-11  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

According to Paul, disputes over genealogies along with the law etc is not only useless, foolish, unprofitable, devisive, but heresy. I would contend that the Gentile churches were having the same debates using Biblical genealogy from the OT, along with disputes over law etc.
So thats where I stand, determining the age of Gods creation through Biblical genealogy is a waste of time. Far too much energy and emotion is wasted on when God created, yet Paul suggests its unimportant at best, heresy at its worst.

[Imabeliever]

Great responses you all!   I believe that science, although sometimes very flawed, describes the processes and tools of God, but scientists are so full of their research and themselves that they dont realize it or dont want to realize it!