If I was in a debate with an athiest trying to get him to accept God and he brought this up I would be clueless
I'm assuming no amount of evidence will convince you dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans?
Kent Hovind is a total imbecile. I'd love to go through his video and pick apart the hundreds of errors and lies, but I do not feel like vomiting tonight. There are numerous critiques of Ken Hovind on the internet, all backed by actual science.
If you really need me to, I can provide some wonderful sources.
Notice how none of the cave paintings contain dinosaurs.
That's not the point, an atheist doesn't have to do a lot to disprove the bible and could easily use the dinosaurs or the true age of the earth thing and if we don't have a full correct answer then how can he take us seriously and even begin to consider believing in God and the rest of the bible?
This is a very good point. But if you only pick the arguments that side with the Bible, you're going to end up spewing lies that have been debunked time and time again. Talk Origins is all about debunking creationist arguments. If you're going to read websites such as Answers In Genesis, then you should at least look through TalkOrigins to understand the counterarguments. And I know, you have already decided anything that contradicts the Bible can't be right no matter how much evidence supports it, but at least you'll be prepared for how evolutionists will respond.
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
When the subject of recent T. Rex and other bones being sliced and studied reveal signs of bone marrow hemoglobin remains, they just rise up in derision or deftly switch topics.. You can get quite a lot of facts about the bone "enigma" from Institute of Creation Research.
Hemoglobin was never found. What was found was hemoglobin by products.
Potholer54 does a wonderful job debunking this myth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
Before I retired I met numerous former evolutionist-minded researchers that at least dropped out of that line of thinking, seeing too much evidence of a much younger earth life history than supposed. Oil explorers top the list of people abandoning evolution just from the age problem. Oil and gas can't get too old to be useful, and can't exist without a fairly recent mass deposit of organic material. So, the organic materials of earth diffuse old ages back to dinosaurs.
Rarely have those who profess to be ex-evolutionists ever actually understood the theory of evolution in the first place. Because every time I hear an ex-evolutionist talk about how flawed evolution is, all I hear is nonsense that clearly proves they are either lying or have never understood the science to begin with.
Ages of rock strata are mostly determined by fossils rather than paying for lab tests. The age of the fossils are mostly determined by supposed ages of the rock layers. That cycle isn't a matter of true science. Suppositions like that are supported by academia, the folks whose livelihood depends of grants, mostly college instructors, researchers, and authors. When you get around real professionals thereis healthy skepticism of what most of us learned growing up. Intact remains of dinosaur remains are being found in arid parts of the world, at or very near the surface with no substantial erosion occurring. There's just too much evidence of dinosaurs living in terms of a few thousand years back rather than millions.
This is a load of nonsense. There are numerous ways in which we age both the earth and fossils.
Scientists aren't supporting evolution just because it's the only way they can get grants. This claim is completely unfounded. Good scientists get grants. The reason most of these scientists support evolution is because creationism literally isn't science, nor does science support creationism.
It's also evident the terrific brutal species were not wrecking havoc around the larger centers of human populations. Many are found in the USA, which had nothing to do with biblical history or geography except maybe before the Genesis flood. All the continents were likely one land mass that geologists named Pangaea. The land divided after the flood due to shifts in geological forces initiated by the flood, which began a major ice age. The probably layout would have hosted a very stable climate capable of allowing long lives for humans an animals. The continents are still moving consistent with that split-up. As a result many species of animals, and tribes of humans, were separated geographically. A few adventurous souls might have explored those departing continents to witness man-eating T. Rex's and lived to record them.
None of this is supported by science what-so-ever. This is something someone dreamed up while sitting in a chair pondering what might have happened. They obviously did no field studies, learned about how local floods effect terain, how oceans effect terrain, etc. The only research that does go into these claims are quote mines and lies.
there are bible verses that talk about Dinosaur like creatures in the times of Job job 40:17 "He moveth his tail like a cedar
The tail moved like a cedar isn't a description about how the tail looks, but how it moved. And no, dinosaur tails didn't move like tree trunks. Most likely, the author was describing cedar branches and how they sway in the wind.
what animal today has a tail like a cedar? there aren't any... also there are many animals that have carnivore looking teeth but eat fruit and vegetables, so for people to say T-Rex went around eating people is just speculation they can't know for sure.
Who are these evolutionists claiming T-Rex ate people? It sounds like you're making up stories about imaginary evolutionists. Anyone who understands and accepts evolution knows T-Rex and humans did not co-exist!
What if they ate a type of fruit that had a very hard shell that is also extinct today. Also there was a Professor at northridge University that took a T-Rex bone cut it open and found soft tissue on it, this places this T-rex at less than 10,000 years old... well before he could even come out and write a article on it he was fired. (he is now suing the school)
The soft tissue found was preserved inside a bone in which it was sealed away from the elements entirely. The YouTube video I linked above explains it quite well. I would also love to know the name of this "scientist" you mentioned. Every time creationists talk about scientists who have been "fired" for supporting creationism, it turns out they're fired because they are caught in acts of fraud - such as submitting papers in scientific journals without having them properly peer reviewed.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is often the source of this misinformation. They named numerous people who have been "fired" for questioning evolution. This website details the actual reasons they were fired, or whether they were actually fired at all.
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks 
