Crocodiles and humans live side-by-side in African village - Telegraph

Here are some comments made by the Creation Science organization AnswersinGenesis:

A series of photographs published by the Telegraph document African villagers who enjoy a “startlingly close relationship” with local crocodiles. The villagers believe the crocodiles are sacred and feed them chicken—no doubt a key to keeping them happy (or full) enough to allow the villagers to “play and do chores just yards from them.” (Follow the link above for photographs.)

Calling it a “magical place,” photographer Oliver Born said, “It shows that crocodiles are not just ferocious and dangerous animals and that they deserve to be protected. Crocodiles are today completely integrated in the life of the population.” The Telegraph also reports that more than 100 of the reptiles live near the village, growing up to 20 feet (6 m) long.

The news is also quite relevant to the creation/evolution debate, because of our often-mocked belief—which comes straight from Scripture—that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (at first peacefully) all the way back to the Garden of Eden. This is from a straightforward reading of Scripture that clearly teaches that humans and dinosaurs were both created on Day 6 of Creation Week.

Of course, while many dinosaurs were always plant-eating, the diets of other dinosaurs went from herbivorous to carnivorous after the Fall. This is the perhaps the most salient basis for evolutionists’ mockery of our human–dinosaur coexistence claim, even though humans inhabit the same world as many dangerous carnivores even today!

Crocodilians are one such dangerous carnivore, considered closely related to dinosaurs and believed even by evolutionists to have lived alongside them. In fact, there’s quite little other than nomenclature that prevents us from considering them living dinosaurs—remember that when anyone laughs at the prospect of dinosaurs living today! We suspect that if crocodilians weren’t so widespread today, they might have been considered just another long-extinct dinosaur—until they turned up living in the present! The same goes for Komodo dragons and other monitor lizards, along with tuatara.

Thus, the scenes of the African villagers mingling with the crocodiles corroborate that humans could have lived alongside (or nearby) even carnivorous dinosaurs. The original “magical place” where that happened was the Garden of Eden, before any animals had turned to carnivory.

Seriously?

That's your reasoning?

By such logic, swimming with sharks means that humans always have coexisted with sharks, including the ancient ones that preceded the dinosaurs. By such logic, since humans can coexist with insects, we must have been around during the carboniferous period.

__________________
Signs of poor skill: unilaterally redefining words and phrases to suit one's argument.

Gee, where does one begin to respond to a post like this one? It would require a complete lecture on paleontology, explaining that there is a 60 million year gap between the last of the Cretaceous dinosaurs and the first hominids. Then it would require one to explain why crocs aren't really dinosaurs any more than Plesiosaurs or Pterodactyls were. Then, of course, it would require a lengthy lecture on how birds, not crocs, share the same lineage as the likes of Tyrannosaurus.

One might also argue that, since we have now managed to send people into space where some live for months at a time, human existence must predate the earth itself.

Perhaps not!

Another lie.

The sentence you've quoted never made any such argument.

The quote below which Obvious Child responded to doesn't make enough sense to be an argument for anything. This whole thing about living side by side with carnivirous crocs by feeding them chicken has little to do with anything, really.


Servant of Christ says:
"Thus, the scenes of the African villagers mingling with the crocodiles corroborate that humans could have lived alongside (or nearby) even carnivorous dinosaurs. The original “magical place” where that happened was the Garden of Eden, before any animals had turned to carnivory. "

Er, no. That is AnswersinGenesis' reasoning. Are you having difficulties reading? It seems so, as you are unable to distinguish between what a poster says and what an organization they are quoting says.

Actually, no, that is not what I said. I said: What you quoted is what Answers in Genesis said. Please do not be dishonest and tell others that I said this as I did not.

So having quoted them, do you disagree with answersingenesis' risible comparison?

__________________
" ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H. L. Mencken

Yes, although I think they have a point (about evos criticising the idea of humans not being able to live with dinos that are carnivorous when humans can coexist with various other animals that are carnivorous), their claims do not follow. I personally posted it becuase of the interesting idea of humans and crocs living together (as well as the darn cool pictures, especially the first one of the flying croc), and happened to run across an article by AiG.

Now, any evo explanations of this close relationship between the two animals?

Generally, when someone posts an article without a disclaimer, they agree with the findings and the reasoning of the article provided.

Besides, your statement does not change the fact that the reasoning provided is foolish.

__________________
Signs of poor skill: unilaterally redefining words and phrases to suit one's argument.

Humans like exotic pets? But that's not exactly news. Humans have been keeping dangerous and strange animals as pets for thousands of years.

__________________
Signs of poor skill: unilaterally redefining words and phrases to suit one's argument.

Since when? So if I were to post a news article where someone says that pedophilia should be legalized, then it means I agree with them? I thought this was a discussion board. That means we, you know, DISCUSS THINGS.

Now, if I had said "Here is AiG's article and I couldn't agree with them more", then you would have an argument.

As I did not, you don't. Now, do you retract your false statement that what you quoted was my reasoning?

Ah, you've engaged in the grammarian nitpick function of debate. Sad, but predictable.

Obviously, I was discussing the entire article, which is making that argument. It is generally bad form to quote an entire post when it reaches such length.

__________________
Signs of poor skill: unilaterally redefining words and phrases to suit one's argument.

The article as a whole never made that argument either.

Lie number.... oh I can't keep track anymore, let's just call it 40.